tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-48889066093696338872024-03-08T01:23:12.357-08:00The American ExperimentDocuments on the Foundations of American Constitutionalism and Diplomacy, 1763-1815Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4888906609369633887.post-55684229046420139812014-08-24T21:58:00.001-07:002014-08-25T06:52:25.028-07:00Madison: The Danger of Locating the War Power in the Executive<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">In 1793. after
Alexander Hamilton published his </i>Pacificus<em> essays in defense of President Washington’s Proclamation of
Neutrality, Jefferson urged Madison to take up his pen to strike down Hamilton’s
heresies. Madison’s response in his </em>Letters of Helvidius<em> was incredibly prolix and difficult for most
mortals to understand, but in a few passages he lucidly laid bare “the
fundamental doctrine of the constitution” locating the power to declare war in
the legislature:<o:p></o:p></em><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
* * *</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
Every just view that can be taken of this subject,
admonishes the public, of the necessity of a rigid adherence to the simple, the
received and the fundamental doctrine of the constitution, that the power to
declare war including the power of judging of the causes of war is <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">fully</i> and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">exclusively</i> vested in the legislature: that the executive has no
right, in any case to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for
declaring war: that the right of convening and informing Congress, whenever
such a question seems to call for a decision, is all the right which the
constitution has deemed requisite or proper: and that for such more than for
any other contingency, this right was specially given to the executive.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the
legislature, and not to the executive department. Beside the objection to such
a mixture of heterogeneous powers: the trust and the temptation would be too
great for any one man: not such as nature may offer as the prodigy of many
centuries, but such as may be expected in the ordinary successions of magistracy.
War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement. In war a physical
force is to be created, and it is the executive will which is to direct it. In
war the public treasures are to be unlocked, and it is the executive hand which
is to dispense them. In war the honors and emoluments of office are to be
multiplied; and it is the executive patronage under which they are to be
enjoyed. It is in war, finally, that laurels are to be gathered, and it is the
executive brow they are to encircle. The strongest passions, and most dangerous
weaknesses of the human breast; ambition, avarice, vanity, the honorable or
venial love of fame, are all in conspiracy against the desire and duty of
peace.<o:p></o:p></div>
Hence it has grown into an axiom that the executive is the department
of power most distinguished by its propensity to war: hence it is the practice
of all states, in proportion as they are free, to disarm this propensity of its
influence.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
As the best praise then that can be pronounced on an
executive magistrate, is, that he is the friend of peace; a praise that rises
in its value, as there may be a known capacity to shine in war: so it must be
one of the most sacred duties of a free people, to mark the first omen in the
society, of principles that may stimulate the hopes of other magistrates of
another propensity, to intrude into questions on which its gratification
depends. If a free people be a wise people also, they will not forget that the
danger of surprise can never be so great, as when the advocates for the prerogative
of war, can sheathe it in a symbol of peace.</div>
<br />
* * *<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
Letters of Helvidius, No. IV, August-September 1793, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/madison-the-writings-vol-6-1790-1802"><span style="color: blue;">The
Writings of James Madison</span></a></i>, Galliard Hunt, ed. (1906), VI: 174-75. (Online
Library of Liberty)</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4888906609369633887.post-67430236243449443182014-08-24T15:12:00.001-07:002014-08-25T14:06:21.174-07:00Vattel: Rights and Duties of Nations<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background: white; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<i style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #4d4d4d;">Emer de Vattel, a Swiss writer, published in 1758<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></i><span style="color: #4d4d4d; text-align: justify;">The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns<i>. The work was widely used in the United States in the era of independence and constitution-making. Vattel was, as Alexander Hamilton remarked, “perhaps the most accurate and approved of the writers on the law of Nations.” Jefferson, insisting that U.S. policy “is dictated by the law of nature and the usage of nations,” believed that no judge of this law was more “enlightened and disinterested” than Vattel. The law of nations was considered authoritative by the Founders. “Ever since we have been an Independent nation,” Hamilton observed, “we have appealed to and acted upon the modern law of Nations as understood in Europe. Various resolutions of Congress during our revolution—the correspondencies of Executive officers—the decisions of our Courts of Admiralty, all recognized this standard.” So, too, did the “executive and legislative Acts and the proceedings of our Courts under” the new government of 1789.</i></span></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background: white; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="color: #4d4d4d; text-align: justify;"></span> </div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background: white; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="color: #4d4d4d; text-align: justify;"></span><i><span style="color: #4d4d4d;">These excerpts from Vattel’s famous work (from the Liberty Fund reprint) are about 6900 words.</span></i></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background: white; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<i><span style="color: #4d4d4d;"><o:p></o:p></span></i> </div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background: white; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="color: #4d4d4d;">* * *</span><span style="color: #4d4d4d;"><br /></span> </div>
<h3 style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background: white; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
PRELIMINARIES: Idea and general Principles of the Law of Nations<br /> </h3>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background: white; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="color: #4d4d4d;">To establish on a solid foundation the obligations and rights of nations, is the design of this work. The<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><span class="ital1">law of nations</span><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>is<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><span class="ital1">the science which teaches the rights subsisting between nations or states, and the obligations correspondent to those rights.</span></span><br />
</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background: white; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="color: #4d4d4d;"><span class="ital1"></span></span><span style="color: #4d4d4d;">In this treatise it will appear, in what manner states, as such, ought to regulate all their actions. We shall examine the obligations of a people, as well towards themselves as towards other nations; and by that means we shall discover the rights which result from those obligations. For, the<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span style="color: #4d4d4d;"> right being nothing more than the power of doing what is morally possible, that is to say, what is proper and consistent with duty,—it is evident that right is derived from duty, or passive obligation,—the obligation we lie under to act in such or such manner. It is therefore<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span style="color: #4d4d4d;">necessary that a nation should acquire a knowledge of the obligations incumbent on her, in order that she may not only avoid all violation of her duty, but also be able distinctly to ascertain her rights, or what she may lawfully require from other nations.</span> </div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background: white; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="color: #4d4d4d;"></span><br />
<span style="color: #4d4d4d;">Nations being composed of men naturally free and independent, and who, before the establishment of civil societies, lived together in the state of nature,—nations or sovereign states are to be considered as so many free persons living together in the state of nature.</span><br />
<span style="color: #4d4d4d;"></span><span style="color: #4d4d4d;"><br /></span> </div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background: white; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="color: #4d4d4d;">It is a settled point with writers on the natural law, that all men inherit from nature a perfect liberty and independence, of which they cannot be deprived without their own consent. In a state, the individual citizens do not enjoy them fully and absolutely, because they have made a partial surrender of them to the sovereign. But the body of the nation, the state, remains absolutely free and independent with respect to all other men, all other nations, as long as it has not voluntarily submitted to them.</span><span style="color: #4d4d4d;"><br /></span></div>
<div id="Vattel_1519_106" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background: white; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span id="lfVattel_mnt005"><span id="lfVattel_label_1229"><span style="color: #4d4d4d;"></span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: #4d4d4d;">As men are subject to the laws of nature,—and as their union in civil society cannot have exempted them from the obligation to observe those laws, since by that union they do not cease to be men,—the entire nation, whose common will is but the result of the united wills of the citizens, remains subject to the laws of nature, and is bound to respect them in all her proceedings. And since right arises from obligation, as we have just observed (§3), the nation possesses also the same rights which nature has conferred upon men in order to enable them to perform their duties.</span><span style="color: #4d4d4d;"><br /></span></div>
<div id="Vattel_1519_107" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background: white; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span id="lfVattel_mnt006"><span id="lfVattel_label_1230"><span style="color: #4d4d4d;"></span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: #4d4d4d;">We must therefore apply to nations the rules of the law of nature, in order to discover what their obligations are, and what their rights: consequently the<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><span class="ital1">law of nations</span><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>is originally no other than the<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><span class="ital1">law of nature applied</span><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>to nations. But as the application of a rule cannot be just and reasonable unless it be made in a manner suitable to the subject, we are not to imagine that the law of nations is precisely and in every case the same as the law of nature, with the difference only of the subjects to which it is applied, so as to allow of our substituting nations for individuals.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span style="color: #4d4d4d;">A state or civil society is a subject very different from an individual of the human race: from which circumstance, pursuant to the law of nature itself, there result, in many cases, very different obligations and rights;<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span style="color: #4d4d4d;">since the same general rule, applied to two subjects, cannot produce exactly the same decisions, when the subjects are different; and a particular rule which is perfectly just with respect to one subject, is not applicable to another subject of a quite different nature. There are many cases, therefore, in which the law of nature does not decide between state and state in the same manner as it would between man and man. We must therefore know how to accommodate the application of it to different subjects; and it is the art of thus applying it with a precision founded on right reason, that renders the law of nations a distinct science.</span><span style="color: #4d4d4d;"><br /></span></div>
<div id="Vattel_1519_107" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background: white; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="color: #4d4d4d;"></span><br />
<span style="color: #4d4d4d;">We call that the necessary law of nations which consists in the application of the law of nature to nations. It is necessary, because nations are absolutely bound to observe it. This law contains the precepts prescribed by the law of nature to states, on whom that law is not less obligatory than on individuals, since states are composed of men, their resolutions are taken by men, and the law of nature is binding on all men, under whatever relation they act. This is the law which Grotius, and those who follow him, call the internal law of nations, on account of its being obligatory on nations in point of conscience. Several writers term it the natural law of nations.</span><span style="color: #4d4d4d;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background: white; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="color: #4d4d4d;"></span><br />
<span style="color: #4d4d4d;">Since therefore the necessary law of nations consists in the application of the law of nature to states,—which law is immutable, as being founded on the nature of things, and particularly on the nature of man,—it follows, that the necessary law of nations is immutable.</span><span style="color: #4d4d4d;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background: white; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="color: #4d4d4d;"></span><br />
<span style="color: #4d4d4d;">Nations can make no change in it, nor dispense with the obligations arising from it.</span><span style="color: #4d4d4d;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background: white; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="color: #4d4d4d;"></span><br />
<span style="color: #4d4d4d;">Whence, as this law is immutable, and the obligations that arise from it necessary and indispensable, nations can neither make any changes in it by their conventions, dispense with it in their own conduct, nor reciprocally release each other from the observance of it.</span><span style="color: #4d4d4d;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background: white; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="color: #4d4d4d;"></span><br />
<span style="color: #4d4d4d;">This is the principle by which we may distinguish lawful conventions or treaties from those that are not lawful, and innocent and rational customs from those that are unjust or censurable.</span><br />
<span style="color: #4d4d4d;"><br /></span> </div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background: white; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="color: #4d4d4d;">There are things, just in themselves, and allowed by the necessary law of nations, on which states may mutually agree with each other, and which they may consecrate and enforce by their manners and customs. There are others, of an indifferent nature, respecting which, it rests at the option of nations to make in their treaties whatever agreements they please, or to introduce whatever custom or practice they think proper. But every treaty, every custom, which contravenes the injunctions or prohibitions of the necessary law of nations, is unlawful. It will appear, however, in the sequel, that it is only by the internal law, by the law of conscience, such conventions or treaties are always condemned as unlawful,—and that, for reasons which shall be given in their proper place, they are nevertheless often valid by the external law. Nations being free and independent,—though the conduct of one of them be illegal and condemnable by the laws of conscience, the others are bound to acquiesce in it, when it does not infringe upon their perfect rights. The liberty of that nation would not remain entire, if the others were to arrogate to themselves the right of inspecting and regulating her actions;—an assumption on their part, that would be contrary to the law of nature, which declares every nation free and independent of all the others.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<br />
* * *</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<h3 class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
BOOK I, CHAPTER II: General Principles of the Duties of a Nation towards itself.</h3>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<br />
If the rights of a nation spring from its obligations, it is principally from those that relate to itself. It will further appear that its duties towards others depend very much on its duties towards itself, as the former are to be regulated and measured by the latter. As we are then to treat of the obligations and rights of nations,—an attention to order requires that we should begin by establishing what each nation owes to itself.<br />
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
The general and fundamental rule of our duties towards ourselves is, that every moral being ought to live in a manner conformable to his nature,<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><i>naturae convenienter vivere</i>. A nation is a being determined by its essential attributes, that has its own nature, and can act in conformity to it. There are then actions of a nation as such, wherein it is concerned in its national character, and which are either suitable or opposite to what constitutes it a nation; so that it is not a matter of indifference whether it performs some of those actions, and omits others. In this respect, the Law of Nature prescribes it certain duties. We shall see, in this first book, what conduct a nation ought to observe, in order that it may not be wanting to itself. But we shall first sketch out a general idea of this subject.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
He who no longer exists can have no duties to perform: and a moral being is charged with obligations to himself, only with a view to his perfection and happiness: for to preserve and to perfect his own nature, is the sum of all his duties to himself.<br />
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
The preservation of a nation consists in the duration of the political association by which it is formed. If a period is put to this association, the nation or state no longer subsists, though the individuals that composed it, still exist.<br />
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
The perfection of a nation is found in what renders it capable of obtaining the end of civil society; and a nation is in a perfect state, when nothing necessary is wanting to arrive at that end. We know that the perfection of a thing consists, generally, in the perfect agreement of all its constituent parts to tend to the same end. A nation being a multitude of men united together in civil society,—if in that multitude all conspire to attain the end proposed in forming a civil society, the nation is perfect; and it is more or less so, according as it approaches more or less to that perfect agreement. In the same manner its external state will be more or less perfect, according as it concurs with the interior perfection of the nation. <br />
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
The end or object of civil society is to procure for the citizens whatever they stand in need of, for the necessities, the conveniences, the accommodation of life, and, in general, whatever constitutes happiness,—with the peaceful possession of property, a method of obtaining justice with security, and, finally a mutual defence against all external violence.<br />
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
It is now easy to form a just idea of the perfection of a state or nation:—every thing in it must conspire to promote the ends we have pointed out.<br />
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
In the act of association, by virtue of which a multitude of men form together a state or nation, each individual has entered into engagements with all, to promote the general welfare; and all have entered into engagements with each individual, to facilitate for him the means of supplying his necessities, and to protect and defend him. It is manifest that these reciprocal engagements can no otherwise be fulfilled than by maintaining the political association. The entire nation is then obliged to maintain that association; and as their preservation depends on its continuance, it thence follows that every nation is obliged to perform the duty of self-preservation.<br />
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
This obligation, so natural to each individual of God’s creation, is not derived to nations immediately from nature, but from the agreement by which civil society is formed: it is therefore not absolute, but conditional,—that is to say, it supposes a human act, to wit, the social compact. And as compacts may be dissolved by common consent of the parties,—if the individuals that compose a nation should unanimously agree to break the link that binds them, it would be lawful for them to do so, and thus to destroy the state or nation; but they would doubtless incur a degree of guilt, if they took this step without just and weighty reasons; for civil societies are approved by the Law of Nature, which recommends them to mankind, as the true means of supplying all their wants, and of effectually advancing towards their own perfection. Moreover civil society is so useful, nay so necessary to all citizens, that it may well be considered as morally impossible for them to consent unanimously to break it without necessity. But what citizens may or ought to do,—what the majority of them may resolve in certain cases of necessity, or of pressing exigency,—are questions that will be treated of elsewhere: they cannot be solidly determined without some principles which we have not yet established. For the present, it is sufficient to have proved, that, in general, as long as the political society subsists, the whole nation is obliged to endeavour to maintain it.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<br />
If a nation is obliged to preserve itself, it is no less obliged carefully to preserve all its members. The nation owes this to itself, since the loss even of one of its members weakens it, and [6] is injurious to its preservation. It owes this also to the members in particular, in consequence of the very act of association; for those who compose a nation are united for their defence and common advantage; and none can justly be deprived of this union, and of the advantages he expects to derive from it, while he on his side fulfils the conditions.<br />
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
The body of a nation cannot then abandon a province, a town, or even a single individual who is a part of it, unless compelled to it by necessity, or indispensably obliged to it by the strongest reasons founded on the public safety.<br />
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
Since then a nation is obliged to preserve itself, it has a right to every thing necessary for its preservation. For the Law of Nature gives us a right to every thing, without which we cannot fulfil our obligation; otherwise it would oblige us to do impossibilities, or rather would contradict itself in prescribing us a duty, and at the same time debarring us of the only means of fulfilling it. It will doubtless be here understood, that those means ought not to be unjust in themselves, or such as are absolutely forbidden by the Law of Nature. As it is impossible that it should ever permit the use of such means,—if on a particular occasion no other present themselves for fulfilling a general obligation, the obligation must, in that particular instance, be looked on as impossible, and consequently void.<br />
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
By an evident consequence from what has been said, a nation ought carefully to avoid, as much as possible, whatever might cause its destruction, or that of the state, which is the same thing.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
A nation or state has a right to every thing that can help to ward off imminent danger, and keep at a distance whatever is capable of causing its ruin; and that from the very same reasons that establish its right to the things necessary to its preservation.<br />
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
The second general duty of a nation towards itself is to labour at its own perfection and that of its state. It is this double perfection that renders a nation capable of attaining the end of civil society: it would be absurd to unite in society, and yet not endeavour to promote the end of that union.<br />
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
Here the entire body of a nation, and each individual citizen, are bound by a double obligation, the one immediately proceeding from nature, and the other resulting from their reciprocal engagements. Nature lays an obligation upon each man to labour after his own perfection; and in so doing, he labours after that of civil society, which could not fail to be very flourishing, were it composed of none but good citizens. But the individual finding in a well regulated society the most powerful succours to enable him to fulfil the task which Nature imposes upon him in relation to himself, for becoming better, and consequently more happy,—he is doubtless obliged to contribute all in his power to render that society more perfect.<br />
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
All the citizens who form a political society, reciprocally engage to advance the common welfare, and as far as possible to promote the advantage of each member. Since then the perfection of the society is what enables it to secure equally the happiness of the body and that of the members, the grand object of the engagements and duties of a citizen is to aim at this perfection. This is more particularly the duty of the body collective in all their common deliberations, and in every thing they do as a body.<br />
<br />
A nation therefore ought to prevent, and carefully to avoid, whatever may hinder its perfection and that of the state, or retard the progress either of the one or the other.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
We may then conclude, as we have done above in regard to the preservation of a state (§18), that a nation has a right to every thing without which it cannot attain the perfection of the members and of the state, or prevent and repel whatever is contrary to this double perfection. . . .<br />
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
We shall conclude this chapter, with observing, that a nation ought to know itself. Without this knowledge, it cannot make any successful endeavours after its own perfection. It ought to have a just idea of its state, to enable it to take the most proper measures; it ought to know the progress it has already made, and what further advances it has still to make,—what advantages it possesses, and what defects it labours under, in order to preserve the former, and correct the latter. Without this knowledge, a nation will act at random, and often take the most improper measures. It will think it acts with great wisdom in imitating the conduct of nations that are reputed wise and skilful,—not perceiving that such or such regulation, such or such practice, though salutary to one state, is often pernicious to another. Every thing ought to be conducted according to its nature. Nations cannot be well governed without such regulations as are suitable to their respective characters; and in order to this, their characters ought to be known.<br />
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
* * *</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<h3 class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
From BOOK II: Of a Nation considered in its Relations to others, CHAPTER I: Of the Common Duties of a Nation towards others, or of the Offices of Humanity between Nations.</h3>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<br />
The following maxims will appear very strange to cabinet politicians: and such is the misfortune of mankind, that, to many of those refined conductors of nations, the doctrine of this chapter will be a subject of ridicule. Be it so!—but we will nevertheless boldly lay down what the law of nature prescribes to nations. Shall we be intimidated by ridicule, when we speak after Cicero? That great man held the reins of the most powerful state that ever existed; and in that station he appeared no less eminent than at the bar. The punctual observance of the law of nature he considered as the most salutary policy to the state. In my preface, I have already quoted this fine passage: “A state cannot be happily governed [when] committing injustice; without a strict attention to the most rigid justice, public affairs cannot be advantageously administered.” I might say on good grounds, that, by the words,<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><i>summa justitia</i>, Cicero means that universal justice which consists in completely fulfilling the law of nature. But in another place he explains himself more clearly on this head, and gives us sufficiently to understand that he does not confine the mutual duties of men to the observance of justice, properly so called. “Nothing,” says he, “is more agreeable to nature, more capable of affording true satisfaction, than, in imitation of Hercules, to undertake even the most arduous and painful labours for the benefit and preservation of all nations.” “It is more in accord with Nature to emulate the great Hercules and undergo the greatest toil and trouble for the sake of aiding or saving the world, if possible, than to live in seclusion, not only free from all care but also reveling in pleasures and abounding in wealth, while excelling others also in beauty and strength. Thus Hercules denied himself and underwent toil and tribulation for the world, and, out of gratitude for his services, popular belief has given him a place in the council of gods. The better and more noble therefore the character with which a man is endowed, the more does he prefer the life of service to the life of pleasure.” In the same chapter, Cicero expressly refutes those who are for excluding foreigners from the benefit of those duties to which they acknowledge themselves bound towards their fellow citizens. “Others again who say that regard should be had for the rights of fellow citizens, but not for foreigners, would destroy the universal brotherhood of mankind; and, when this is annihilated, kindness, generosity, goodness, and justice must utterly perish; and those who work all this destruction must be considered as wickedly rebelling against the immortal gods. For they uproot the fellowship between humans.”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
And why should we not hope still to find, among those who are at the head of affairs, some wise individuals, who are convinced of this great truth, that virtue is, even for sovereigns and political bodies, the most certain road to prosperity and happiness? There is at least one benefit to be expected from the open assertion and publication of sound maxims, which is, that even those who relish them the least, are thereby laid under a necessity of keeping within some bounds, lest they should forfeit their characters altogether. To flatter ourselves with the vain expectation that men, and especially men in power, will be inclined strictly to conform to the laws of nature, would be a gross mistake; and to renounce all hope of making impression on some of them, would be to give up mankind for lost.<br />
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
Nations being obliged by nature reciprocally to cultivate human society (Prelim. §11), are bound to observe towards each other all the duties which the safety and advantage of that society require.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
The offices of humanity are those succours, those duties, which men owe to each other, as men, that is, as social beings formed to live in society, and standing in need of mutual assistance for their preservation and happiness, and to enable them to live in a manner conformable to their nature. Now the laws of nature being no less obligatory on nations than on individuals (Prelim. §5), whatever duties each man owes to other men, the same does each nation, in its way, owe to other nations (Prelim. §10, &c.). Such is the foundation of those common duties,—of those offices of humanity,—to which nations are reciprocally bound towards each other. They consist, generally, in doing every thing in our power for the preservation and happiness of others, as far as such conduct is reconcilable with our duties towards ourselves.<br />
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
The nature and essence of man—who, without the assistance of his fellow men, is unable to supply all his wants, to preserve himself, to render himself perfect, and to live happily—plainly shews us that he is destined to live in society, in the interchange of mutual aid,—and, consequently, that all men are, by their very nature and essence, obliged to unite their common efforts for the perfection of their own being and that of their condition. The surest method of succeeding in this pursuit is, that each individual should exert his efforts, first for himself, and then for others. Hence it follows that whatever we owe to ourselves, we like-wise owe to others, so far as they stand in need of assistance, and we can grant it to them without being wanting to ourselves. Since then one nation, in its way, owes to another nation every duty that one man owes to another man, we may confidently lay down this general principle:—One state owes to another state whatever it owes to itself, so far as that other stands in real need of its assistance, and the former can grant it without neglecting the duties it owes to itself. Such is the eternal and immutable law of nature. Those who might be alarmed at this doctrine, as totally subversive of the maxims of sound policy, will be relieved from their apprehensions by the two following considerations—<br />
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
1. Social bodies or sovereign states are much more capable of supplying all their wants than individual men are; and mutual assistance is not so necessary among them, nor so frequently required. Now, in those particulars which a nation can itself perform, no succour is due to it from others.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<br />
2. The duties of a nation towards itself, and chiefly the care of its own safety, require much more circumspection and reserve, than need be observed by an individual in giving assistance to others. This remark we shall soon illustrate.<br />
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
Of all the duties of a nation towards itself the chief object is its preservation and perfection, together with that of its state. The detail given of them in the first book of this work may serve to point out the several objects in relation to which a state may and should assist another state. Every nation ought, on occasion, to labour for the preservation of others, and for securing them from ruin and destruction, as far as it can do this, without exposing itself too much. Thus, when a neighbouring nation is unjustly attacked by a powerful enemy who threatens to oppress it,—if you can defend it without exposing yourself to great danger, unquestionably it is your duty to do so. Let it not be said, in objection to this, that a sovereign is not to expose the lives of his soldiers, for the safety of a foreign nation with which he has not contracted a defensive alliance. It may be his own case to stand in need of assistance; and consequently he is acting for the safety of his own nation, in giving energy to the spirit and disposition to afford mutual aid. Accordingly, policy here coincides with and enforces obligation and duty. It is the interest of princes to stop the progress of an ambitious monarch who aims at aggrandising himself by subjugating his neighbours. A powerful league was formed in favour of the United Provinces, when threatened with the yoke of Lewis XIV. When the Turks laid siege to Vienna, the brave Sobieski king of Poland saved the house of Austria, and possibly all Germany, and his own kingdom.<br />
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
For the same reason, if a nation is afflicted with famine, all those who have provisions to spare ought to relieve her distress, without however exposing themselves to want. But if that nation is able to pay for the provisions thus furnished, it is perfectly lawful to sell them to her at a reasonable rate; for they are not bound to furnish her with what she is herself capable of procuring; and consequently there is no obligation of gratuitously bestowing on her such things as she is able to purchase. To give assistance in such extreme necessity is so essentially conformable to humanity, that the duty is seldom neglected by any nation that has received the slightest polish of civilisation. The great Henry the Fourth could not forbear to comply with it in favour of obstinate rebels who were bent on his destruction.<br />
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
Whatever be the calamity with which a nation is afflicted, the like assistance is due to it. We have seen little states in Switzerland order public collections to be made in behalf of towns or villages of the neighbouring countries, which had been ruined by fire, and remit them liberal succours; the difference of religion proving no bar to the performance of so humane a deed. The calamities of Portugal have given England an opportunity of fulfilling the duties of humanity with that noble generosity which characterises a great nation. On the first intelligence of the disastrous fate of Lisbon [in earthquake of 1755], the parliament voted a hundred thousand pounds sterling for the relief of an unfortunate people; the king also added considerable sums: ships, laden with provisions and all kinds of succours, were sent away with the utmost dispatch; and their arrival convinced the Portuguese, that an opposition in belief and worship does not restrain the beneficence of those who understand the claims of humanity. On the same occasion likewise the king of Spain signally displayed his tenderness for a near ally, and exerted in a conspicuous manner his humanity and generosity.<br />
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
A nation must not simply confine itself to the preservation of other states; it should likewise, according to its power and their want of its assistance, contribute to their perfection. We have already shewn (Prelim. §13) that natural society imposes on it this general obligation. We are now come to the proper place for treating of the obligation somewhat more in detail. A state is more or less perfect, as it is more or less adapted to attain the end of civil society, which consists in procuring for its members every thing of which they stand in need, for the necessities, the conveniences and enjoyments of life, and for their happiness in general,—in providing for the peaceful enjoyment of property, and the safe and easy administration of justice,—and, finally, in defending itself against all foreign violence (Book I. §15). Every nation therefore should occasionally, and according to its power, contribute, not only to put another nation in possession of these advantages, but likewise to render it capable of procuring them itself. Accordingly, a learned nation, if applied to for masters and teachers in the sciences, by another nation desirous of shaking off its native barbarism, ought not to refuse such a request. A nation whose happiness it is to live under wise laws, should, on occasion, make it a point of duty to communicate them. Thus when the wise and virtuous Romans sent ambassadors to Greece to collect good laws, the Greeks were far from rejecting so reasonable and so laudable a request.<br />
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
But though a nation be obliged to promote, as far as lies in its power, the perfection of others, it is not entitled forcibly to obtrude these good offices on them. Such an attempt would be a violation of their natural liberty. In order to compel any one to receive a kindness, we must have an authority over him; but nations are absolutely free and independent (Prelim. §4). Those ambitious Europeans who attacked the American nations, and subjected them to their greedy dominion, in order, as they pretended, to civilise them, and cause them to be instructed in the true religion,—those usurpers, I say, grounded themselves on a pretext equally unjust and ridiculous. It is strange to hear the learned and judicious Grotius assert, that a sovereign may justly take up arms to chastise nations which are guilty of enormous transgressions of the law of nature,<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><i>which treat their parents with inhumanity like the Sogdians, which eat human flesh as the ancient Gauls, &c</i>. [citing Grotius,<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><i>De Jure Belli et Pacis</i>, book 2, chap. 20, §11.] What led him into this error, was his attributing to every independent man, and of course to every sovereign, an odd kind of right to punish faults which involve an enormous violation of the laws of nature, though they do not affect either his rights or his safety. But we have shewn (Book I. §169) that men derive the right of punishment solely from their right to provide for their own safety; and consequently they cannot claim it except against those by whom they have been injured. Could it escape Grotius, that, notwithstanding all the precautions added by him in the following paragraphs, his opinion opens a door to all the ravages of enthusiasm and fanaticism, and furnishes ambition with numberless pretexts? Mahomet and his successors have desolated and subdued Asia, to avenge the indignity done to the unity of the Godhead; all whom they termed associators or idolaters fell victims to their devout fury. . . .</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
</div>
<h3 class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">CHAPTER IV: Of the Right to Security, and the
Effects of the Sovereignty and Independence of nations.<o:p></o:p></span></h3>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">In vain does nature prescribe to nations, as
well as to individuals, the care of self-preservation, and of advancing their
own perfection and happiness, if she does not give them a right to preserve
themselves from every thing that might render this care ineffectual. This right
is nothing more than a moral power of acting, that is, the power of doing what
is morally possible,—what is proper and conformable to our duties. We have then
in general a right to do whatever is necessary to the discharge of our duties.
Every nation, as well as every man, has therefore a right to prevent other
nations from obstructing her preservation, her perfection, and happiness,—that
is, to preserve herself from all injuries (§18): and this right is a perfect
one, since it is given to satisfy a natural and indispensable obligation: for
when we cannot use constraint in order to cause our rights to be respected,
their effects are very uncertain. It is this right to preserve herself from all
injury that is called the right to security.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">It is safest to prevent the evil, when it can
be prevented. A nation has a right to resist an injurious attempt, and to make
use of force and every honourable expedient against whosoever is actually
engaged in opposition to her, and even to anticipate his machinations,
observing, however, not to attack him upon vague and uncertain suspicions, lest
she should incur the imputation of becoming herself an unjust aggressor.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">When the evil is done, the same right to
security authorises the offended party to endeavour to obtain a complete
reparation, and to employ force for that purpose, if necessary.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"></span> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Finally, the offended party have a right to
provide for their future security, and to chastise the offender, by inflicting
upon him a punishment capable of deterring him thenceforward from similar
aggressions, and of intimidating those who might be tempted to imitate him.
They may even, if necessary, disable the aggressor from doing further injury.
They only make use of their right in all these measures, which they adopt with
good reason: and if evil thence results to him who has reduced them to the
necessity of taking such steps, he must impute the consequences only to his own
injustice.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"></span> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"></span> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">If then there is any-where a nation of a
restless and mischievous disposition, ever ready to injure others, to traverse
their designs, and to excite domestic disturbances in their dominions,—it is
not to be doubted that all the others have a right to form a coalition in order
to repress and chastise that nation, and to put it forever after out of her
power to injure them. Such would be the just fruits of the policy which
Machiavel praises in Caesar Borgia. The conduct followed by Philip II. king of
Spain, was calculated to unite all Europe against him; and it was from just
reasons that Henry the Great formed the design of humbling a power, whose
strength was formidable, and whose maxims were pernicious.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">The three preceding propositions are so many
principles, that furnish the various foundations for a just war, as we shall
see in the proper place.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"></span><br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"></span> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">It is an evident consequence of the liberty
and independence of nations, that all have a right to be governed as they think
proper, and that no state has the smallest right to interfere in the government
of another. Of all the rights that can belong to a nation, sovereignty is,
doubtless, the most precious, and that which other nations ought the most
scrupulously to respect, if they would not do her an injury.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"></span><br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">The sovereign is he to whom the nation has
intrusted the empire, and the care of the government: she has invested him with
her rights; she alone is directly interested in the manner in which the
conductor she has chosen makes use of his power. It does not then belong to any
foreign power to take cognisance of the administration of that sovereign, to
set himself up for a judge of his conduct, and to oblige him to alter it. If he
loads his subjects with taxes, and if he treats them with severity, the nation alone
is concerned in the business; and no other is called upon to oblige him to
amend his conduct, and follow more wise and equitable maxims. It is the part of
prudence to point out the occasions when officious and amicable representations
may be made to him. The Spaniards violated all rules, when they set themselves
up as judges of the Inca Athualpa. If that prince had violated the law of
nations with respect to them, they would have had a right to punish him. But
they accused him of having put some of his subjects to death, of having had
several wives, &c.—things, for which he was not at all accountable to them;
and, to fill up the measure of their extravagant injustice, they condemned him
by the laws of Spain.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"></span><br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">But if the prince, by violating the
fundamental laws, gives his subjects a legal right to resist him,—if tyranny
becoming insupportable obliges the nation to rise in their own defence,—every
foreign power has a right to succour an oppressed people who implore their
assistance. The English justly complained of James II. The nobility and the
most distinguished patriots, having determined to check him in the prosecution
of his schemes, which manifestly tended to overthrow the constitution, and to
destroy the liberties and the religion of the people,—applied for assistance to
the United Provinces. The authority of the prince of Orange had, doubtless, an
influence on the deliberations of the states-general; but it did not lead them
to the commission of an act of injustice: for when a people from good reasons
take up arms against an oppressor, it is but an act of justice and generosity
to assist brave men in the defence of their liberties. Whenever therefore matters
are carried so far as to produce a civil war, foreign powers may assist that
party which appears to them to have justice on its side. He who assists an
odious tyrant,—he who declares for an unjust and rebellious people,—violates
his duty. But when the bands of the political society are broken, or at least
suspended, between the sovereign and his people, the contending parties may
then be considered as two distinct powers; and since they are both equally
independent of all foreign authority, nobody has a right to judge them. Either
may be in the right; and each of those who grant their assistance may imagine
that he is acting in support of the better cause. It follows then, in virtue of
the voluntary law of nations (see Prelim. §21), that the two parties may act as
having an equal right, and behave to each other accordingly, till the decision
of the affair.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"></span><br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">But we ought not to abuse this maxim, and make
a handle of it to authorise odious machinations against the internal
tranquillity of states. It is a violation of the law of nations to invite those
subjects to revolt who actually pay obedience to their sovereign, though they
complain of his government.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"></span> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"></span> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">The practice of nations is conformable to our
maxims. When the German protestants came to the assistance of the reformed
party in France, the court never attempted to treat them otherwise than on the
usual footing of enemies in general, and according to the laws of war. France
was at the same time engaged in assisting the Netherlands then in arms against
Spain,—and expected that her troops should be considered in no other light than
as auxiliaries in a regular war. But no power ever fails to complain, as of an
atrocious wrong, if any one attempts by his emissaries to excite his subjects
to revolt. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"></span> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"></span><span style="mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">As to those monsters who, under the title of
sovereigns, render themselves the scourges and horror of the human race, they
are savage beasts, whom every brave man may justly exterminate from the face of
the earth. All antiquity has praised Hercules for delivering the world from an
Antaeus, a Busiris, and a Diomede.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
* * *<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
Emer de Vattel,<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><i><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/2246">The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns</a></i>. . . Richard Whatmore and Béla Kapossy, eds. (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund) (originally published 1758). I substituted the English translations of Cicero for the Latin in the Vattel's original text. </div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4888906609369633887.post-85525012252111428692014-08-20T10:14:00.000-07:002014-08-20T10:18:56.075-07:00Madison: Pay Attention to What Other Nations Think<em>This passage appears in the 63rd number of </em>The Federalist<em>. Madison is explaining the utility of a senate. A nation, he thinks, needs not only to gain the "esteem" of foreign powers but, more importantly, to actually deserve it. Without a senate, "the national councils will not possess that sensibility to the opinion of the world, which is perhaps not less necessary in order to merit, than it is to obtain, its respect and confidence."</em><br />
<br />
* * *<br />
<br />
An attention to the judgment of other nations is important to every government for two reasons: the one is, that, independently of the merits of any particular plan or measure, it is desirable, on various accounts, that it should appear to other nations as the offspring of a wise and honorable policy; the second is, that in doubtful cases, particularly where the national councils may be warped by some strong passion or momentary interest, the presumed or known opinion of the impartial world may be the best guide that can be followed. What has not America lost by her want of character with foreign nations; and how many errors and follies would she not have avoided, if the justice and propriety of her measures had, in every instance, been previously tried by the light in which they would probably appear to the unbiased part of mankind?<br />
<br />
* * *<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa63.htm"><em>Federalist</em> No. 63</a>, constitution.org. Such was the inspiration for another blog of mine, <a href="http://what-they-think2.blogspot.com/">What They Think: A Survey of the Views of Foreign Diplomats and Leaders</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4888906609369633887.post-37193183652384357232013-09-07T18:23:00.000-07:002013-09-07T18:23:10.504-07:00Hamilton: From League to Government
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">In </i>Federalist<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> No. 15, Hamilton takes up the question of “the
insufficiency of the present confederation to the preservation of the union.” Hamilton
begins his paper with a classic depiction of the “last stage of national
humiliation” facing the disunited states. But he still felt obligated to show
that “the evils we experience do not proceed from minute or partial
imperfections, but from fundamental errors in the structure of the building,
which cannot be amended, otherwise than by an alteration in the very elements
and main pillars of the fabric.”<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
* * *</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
The great and radical vice, in the construction of the
existing confederation, is in the principle of legislation for states or
governments, in their corporate or collective capacities, and as
contradistinguished from the individuals of whom they consist. Though this
principle does not run through all the powers delegated to the union; yet it
pervades and governs those on which the efficacy of the rest depends: except,
as to the rule of apportionment, the United States have an indefinite
discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority
to raise either, by regulations extending to the individual citizens of
America. The consequence of this is, that, though in theory, their resolutions
concerning those objects, are laws, constitutionally binding on the members of
the union; yet, in practice, they are mere recommendations, which the states
observe or disregard at their option.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
It is a singular instance of the capriciousness of the human
mind, that, after all the admonitions we have had from experience on this head,
there should still be found men, who object to the new constitution, for
deviating from a principle which has been found the bane of the old; and which
is, in itself, evidently incompatible with the idea of a government; a
principle, in short, which, if it is to be executed at all, must substitute the
violent and sanguinary agency of the sword, to the mild influence of the magistracy.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
There is nothing absurd or impracticable, in the idea of a
league or alliance between independent nations, for certain defined purposes
precisely stated in a treaty; regulating all the details of time, place,
circumstance, and quantity; leaving nothing to future discretion; and depending
for its execution on the good faith of the parties. Compacts of this kind,
exist among all civilized nations, subject to the usual vicissitudes of peace
and war; of observance and non-observance, as the interests or passions of the
contracting powers dictate. In the early part of the present century, there was
an epidemical rage in Europe for this species of compacts; from which the
politicians of the times fondly hoped for benefits which were never realized.
With a view to establishing the equilibrium of power, and the peace of that
part of the world, all the resources of negotiation were exhausted, and triple
and quadruple alliances were formed; but they were scarcely formed before they
were broken, giving an instructive, but afflicting, lesson to mankind, how
little dependence is to be placed on treaties which have no other sanction than
the obligations of good faith; and which oppose general considerations of peace
and justice, to the impulse of any immediate interest or passion. </div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
If the particular states in this country are disposed to
stand in a similar relation to each other, and to drop the project of a general
discretionary superintendence, the scheme would indeed be pernicious, and would
entail upon us all the mischiefs which have been enumerated under the first
head; but it would have the merit of being, at least, consistent and
practicable. Abandoning all views towards a confederate government, this would
bring us to a simple alliance, offensive and defensive; and would place us in a
situation to be alternately friends and enemies of each other, as our mutual
jealousies and rivalships, nourished by the intrigues of foreign nations,
should prescribe to us.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
But if we are unwilling to be placed in this perilous
situation; if we still adhere to the design of a national government, or, which
is the same thing, of a superintending power, under the direction of a common
council, we must resolve to incorporate into our plan those ingredients, which
may be considered as forming the characteristic difference between a league and
a government; we must extend the authority of the union to the persons of the
citizens . . . the only proper objects of government.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Government implies the power of making laws. It is essential
to the idea of a law, that it be attended with a sanction; or, in other words,
a penalty or punishment for disobedience. If there be no penalty annexed to
disobedience, the resolutions or commands which pretend to be laws, will in
fact amount to nothing more than advice or recommendation. This penalty,
whatever it may be, can only be inflicted in two ways; by the agency of the
courts and ministers of justice, or by military force; by the coercion of the
magistracy, or by the coercion of arms. The first kind can evidently apply only
to men: the last kind must of necessity be employed against bodies politic, or
communities or states. It is evident, that there is no process of a court by
which their observance of the laws can, in the last resort, be enforced.
Sentences may be denounced against them for violations of their duty; but these
sentences can only be carried into execution by the sword. In an association,
where the general authority is confined to the collective bodies of the
communities that compose it, every breach of the laws must involve a state of
war, and military execution must become the only instrument of civil obedience.
Such a state of things can certainly not deserve the name of government, nor
would any prudent man choose to commit his happiness to it.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
There was a time when we were told that breaches, by the
states, of the regulations of the federal authority were not to be expected;
that a sense of common interest would preside over the conduct of the
respective members, and would beget a full compliance with all the
constitutional requisitions of the union. This language, at the present day,
would appear as wild as a great part of what we now hear from the same quarter
will be thought, when we shall have received further lessons from that best
oracle of wisdom, experience. It at all times betrayed an ignorance of the true
springs by which human conduct is actuated, and belied the original inducements
to the establishment of civil power. Why has government been instituted at all?
Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and
justice, without constraint. Has it been found that bodies of men act with more
rectitude or greater disinterestedness than individuals? The contrary of this
has been inferred by all accurate observers of the conduct of mankind; and the
inference is founded upon obvious reasons. Regard to reputation, has a less
active influence, when the infamy of a bad action is to be divided among a
number, than when it is to fall singly upon one. A spirit of faction, which is
apt to mingle its poison in the deliberations of all bodies of men, will often
hurry the persons, of whom they are composed, into improprieties and excesses,
for which they would blush in a private capacity.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
In addition to all this, there is, in the nature of
sovereign power, an impatience of control, which disposes those who are
invested with the exercise of it, to look with an evil eye upon all external
attempts to restrain or direct its operations. From this spirit it happens,
that in every political association which is formed upon the principle of
uniting in a common interest a number of lesser sovereignties, there will be
found a kind of eccentric tendency in the subordinate or inferior orbs, by the
operation of which there will be a perpetual effort in each to fly off from the
common centre. This tendency is not difficult to be accounted for. It has its
origin in the love of power. Power controled or abridged is almost always the
rival and enemy of that power by which it is controled or abridged. This simple
proposition will teach us how little reason there is to expect, that the
persons entrusted with the administration of the affairs of the particular
members of a confederacy, will at all times be ready, with perfect good humour,
and an unbiassed regard to the public weal, to execute the resolutions or
decrees of the general authority. The reverse of this results from the
constitution of man. . . .</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
In our case, the concurrence of thirteen distinct sovereign
wills is requisite under the confederation, to the complete execution of every
important measure, that proceeds from the union. It has happened, as was to
have been foreseen. The measures of the union have not been executed; the
delinquencies of the states have, step by step, matured themselves to an
extreme, which has at length arrested all the wheels of the national
government, and brought them to an awful stand. Congress at this time scarcely
possess the means of keeping up the forms of administration, till the states
can have time to agree upon a more substantial substitute for the present
shadow of a federal government. Things did not come to this desperate extremity
at once. The causes which have been specified, produced at first only unequal
and disproportionate degrees of compliance with the requisitions of the union.
The greater deficiencies of some states furnished the pretext of example, and
the temptation of interest to the complying, or at least delinquent states. Why
should we do more in proportion than those who are embarked with us in the same
political voyage? Why should we consent to bear more than our proper share of
the common burthen? These were suggestions which human selfishness could not
withstand, and which even speculative men, who looked forward to remote
consequences, could not without hesitation combat. Each state, yielding to the
persuasive voice of immediate interest or convenience, has successively
withdrawn its support, till the frail and tottering edifice seems ready to fall
upon our heads, and to crush us beneath its ruins.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4888906609369633887.post-56252539431612690062013-09-06T22:55:00.000-07:002013-09-07T12:04:37.513-07:00Madison: Of Rivalry Among the Great<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">In his speech of June
28, 1787, in the Federal Convention, James Madison was debating with
representatives of the small states the question of their representation in the
proposed federal government, and was concerned to show that the small states
had nothing to fear from combinations of the larger states, that in fact their
true interest was to subordinate themselves to a general authority as much as
possible. Only then could they be secure. In making his demonstration, Madison
showed that he had reflected greatly on the history of independent states and
nations: <o:p></o:p></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p>* * * </o:p></div>
<o:p> </o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Was a combination of the large ones dreaded? This must arise
either from some interest common to Virginia, Massachusetts, & Pennsylvania
distinguishing them from the other States or from the mere circumstance of
similarity of size. Did any such common interest exist? In point of situation
they could not have been more effectually separated from each other by the most
jealous citizen of the most jealous State. In point of manners, Religion, and
the other circumstances which sometimes beget affection between different
communities, they were not more assimilated than the other States.—In point of
the staple productions they were as dissimilar as any three other States in the
Union. The Staple of Massachusetts was fish, of Pennsylvania flower, of Virginia
tobacco. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Was a combination to be apprehended from the mere circumstance of
equality of size? Experience suggested no such danger. The journals of Congress
did not present any peculiar association of these States in the votes recorded.
It had never been seen that different Counties in the same State, conformable
in extent, but disagreeing in other circumstances, betrayed a propensity to
such combinations. Experience rather taught a contrary lesson. Among
individuals of superior eminence & weight in Society, rivalships were much
more frequent than coalitions. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Among independent nations, pre-eminent over
their neighbours, the same remark was verified. Carthage & Rome tore one
another to pieces instead of uniting their forces to devour the weaker nations
of the Earth. The Houses of Austria & France were hostile as long as they
remained the greatest powers of Europe. England & France have succeeded to
the pre-eminence & to the enmity. To this principle we owe perhaps our
liberty. A coalition between those powers would have been fatal to us. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Among
the principal members of antient & Modern confederacies, we find the same
effect from the same cause. The contentions, not the Coalitions of Sparta,
Athens & Thebes, proved fatal to the smaller members of the Amphyctionic
Confederacy. The contentions, not the combinations of Prussia & Austria,
have distracted & oppressed the Germanic empire. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Were the large States
formidable singly to their smaller neighbours? On this supposition the latter
ought to wish for such a general Government as will operate with equal energy
on the former as on themselves. The more lax the band, the more liberty the
larger will have to avail themselves of their superior force. Here again
Experience was an instructive monitor. What is the situation of the weak
compared with the strong in those stages of civilization in which the violence
of individuals is least controuled by an efficient Government? The Heroic
period of Antient Greece, the feudal licentiousness of the middle ages of
Europe, the existing condition of the American Savages, answer this question.
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
What is the situation of the minor sovereigns in the great society of
independent nations, in which the more powerful are under no controul but the
nominal authority of the law of Nations? Is not the danger to the former
exactly in proportion to their weakness. But there are cases still more in
point. What was the condition of the weaker members of the Amphyctionic
Confederacy. Plutarch [58 life of Themistocles] will inform us that it happened
but too often that the strongest cities corrupted & awed the weaker, and
that Judgment went in favor of the more powerful party. What is the condition
of the lesser states in the German Confederacy? We all know that they are exceedingly
trampled 'upon; and that they owe their safety as far as they enjoy it, partly
to their enlisting themselves, under the rival banners of the pre-eminent
members, partly to alliances with neighbouring Princes which the Constitution
of the Empire does not prohibit. What is the state of things in the lax system
of the Dutch Confederacy? Holland contains about ½ the people, supplies about ½
of the money, and by her influence, silently & indirectly governs the whole
republic. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
In a word; the two extremes before us are a perfect separation &
a perfect incorporation, of the 13 States. In the first case they would be independent
nations subject to no law, but the law of nations. In the last, they would be
mere counties of one entire republic, subject to one common law. In the first
case the smaller States would have every thing to fear from the larger. In the
last they would have nothing to fear. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
The true policy of the small States therefore
lies in promoting those principles & that form of Government which will
most approximate the States to the condition of counties. Another consideration
may be added. If the General Government be feeble, the large States distrusting
its continuance, and foreseeing that their importance & security may depend
on their own size & strength, will never submit to a partition. Give to the
General Government sufficient energy & permanency, & you remove the
objection. Gradual partitions of the large, & junctions of the small States
will be facilitated, and time may effect that equalization, which is wished for
by the small States now, but can never be accomplished at once.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
* * *</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Source: <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Documents
Illustrative of the Formation of the Union of the American States</i>, edited
by Charles C. Tansill. (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1927), 292-294.
I have filled out abbreviations and split the speech into separate paragraphs. </div>
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4888906609369633887.post-1485247622714784072013-09-06T21:15:00.000-07:002013-10-22T19:57:47.081-07:00Congress: The Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms<em>John Dickinson and Thomas Jefferson drafted The Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms, issued July 6, 1775, by "The Representatives of the United Colonies of North-America, Now Met in Congress at Philadelphia." In Dickinson's hand is the first two thirds; in Jefferson's, the rousing conclusion. Apart from the Declaration of Independence, which advanced the case in a few particulars, this is the best statement of the American position in the controversy with Great Britain. </em><br />
<em></em><br />
<em>* * *</em><br />
<br />
If it was possible for men, who exercise their reason to
believe, that the divine Author of our existence intended a part of the human
race to hold an absolute property in, and an unbounded power over others,
marked out by his infinite goodness and wisdom, as the objects of a legal
domination never rightfully resistible, however severe and oppressive, the
inhabitants of these colonies might at least require from the parliament of
Great-Britain some evidence, that this dreadful authority over them, has been
granted to that body. But a reverance for our Creator, principles of humanity,
and the dictates of common sense, must convince all those who reflect upon the
subject, that government was instituted to promote the welfare of mankind, and
ought to be administered for the attainment of that end. The legislature of
Great-Britain, however, stimulated by an inordinate passion for a power not
only unjustifiable, but which they know to be peculiarly reprobated by the very
constitution of that kingdom, and desparate of success in any mode of contest,
where regard should be had to truth, law, or right, have at length, deserting
those, attempted to effect their cruel and impolitic purpose of enslaving these
colonies by violence, and have thereby rendered it necessary for us to close
with their last appeal from reason to arms. - Yet, however blinded that
assembly may be, by their intemperate rage for unlimited domination, so to
sight justice and the opinion of mankind, we esteem ourselves bound by
obligations of respect to the rest of the world, to make known the justice of
our cause.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Our forefathers, inhabitants of the island of Great-Britain,
left their native land, to seek on these shores a residence for civil and
religious freedom. At the expense of their blood, at the hazard of their fortunes,
without the least charge to the country from which they removed, by unceasing
labour, and an unconquerable spirit, they effected settlements in the distant
and unhospitable wilds of America, then filled with numerous and warlike
barbarians.—Societies or governments, vested with perfect legislatures, were
formed under charters from the crown, and an harmonious intercourse was
established between the colonies and the kingdom from which they derived their
origin. The mutual benefits of this union became in a short time so
extraordinary, as to excite astonishment. It is universally confessed, that the
amazing increase of the wealth, strength, and navigation of the realm, arose
from this source; and the minister, who so wisely and successfully directed the
measures of Great-Britain in the late war, publicly declared, that these
colonies enabled her to triumph over her enemies.—Towards the conclusion of
that war, it pleased our sovereign to make a change in his counsels.—From that fatal
movement, the affairs of the British empire began to fall into confusion, and
gradually sliding from the summit of glorious prosperity, to which they had
been advanced by the virtues and abilities of one man, are at length distracted
by the convulsions, that now shake it to its deepest foundations.—The new
ministry finding the brave foes of Britain, though frequently defeated, yet
still contending, took up the unfortunate idea of granting them a hasty peace,
and then subduing her faithful friends.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
These devoted colonies were judged to be in such a state, as
to present victories without bloodshed, and all the easy emoluments of
statuteable plunder.—The uninterrupted tenor of their peaceable and respectful
behaviour from the beginning of colonization, their dutiful, zealous, and
useful services during the war, though so recently and amply acknowledged in
the most honourable manner by his majesty, by the late king, and by parliament,
could not save them from the meditated innovations.—Parliament was influenced
to adopt the pernicious project, and assuming a new power over them, have in
the course of eleven years, given such decisive specimens of the spirit and
consequences attending this power, as to leave no doubt concerning the effects
of acquiescence under it. They have undertaken to give and grant our money
without our consent, though we have ever exercised an exclusive right to
dispose of our own property; statutes have been passed for extending the
jurisdiction of courts of admiralty and vice-admiralty beyond their ancient
limits; for depriving us of the accustomed and inestimable privilege of trial
by jury, in cases affecting both life and property; for suspending the
legislature of one of the colonies; for interdicting all commerce to the
capital of another; and for altering fundamentally the form of government
established by charter, and secured by acts of its own legislature solemnly
confirmed by the crown; for exempting the "murderers" of colonists
from legal trial, and in effect, from punishment; for erecting in a
neighbouring province, acquired by the joint arms of Great-Britain and America,
a despotism dangerous to our very existence; and for quartering soldiers upon
the colonists in time of profound peace. It has also been resolved in
parliament, that colonists charged with committing certain offences, shall be
transported to England to be tried.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
But why should we enumerate our injuries in detail? By one
statute it is declared, that parliament can "of right make laws to bind us
in all cases whatsoever." What is to defend us against so enormous, so
unlimited a power? Not a single man of those who assume it, is chosen by us; or
is subject to our control or influence; but, on the contrary, they are all of
them exempt from the operation of such laws, and an American revenue, if not
diverted from the ostensible purposes for which it is raised, would actually
lighten their own burdens in proportion, as they increase ours. We saw the
misery to which such despotism would reduce us. We for ten years incessantly and
ineffectually besieged the throne as supplicants; we reasoned, we remonstrated
with parliament, in the most mild and decent language.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Administration sensible that we should regard these
oppressive measures as freemen ought to do, sent over fleets and armies to
enforce them. The indignation of the Americans was roused, it is true; but it
was the indignation of a virtuous, loyal, and affectionate people. A Congress
of delegates from the United Colonies was assembled at Philadelphia, on the
fifth day of last September. We resolved again to offer an humble and dutiful
petition to the King, and also addressed our fellow-subjects of Great-Britain.
We have pursued every temperate, every respectful measure; we have even
proceeded to break off our commercial intercourse with our fellow-subjects, as
the last peaceable admonition, that our attachment to no nation upon earth
should supplant our attachment to liberty.—This, we flattered ourselves, was
the ultimate step of the controversy: but subsequent events have shewn, how
vain was this hope of finding moderation in our enemies.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Several threatening expressions against the colonies were
inserted in his majesty's speech; our petition, tho' we were told it was a
decent one, and that his majesty had been pleased to receive it graciously, and
to promise laying it before his parliament, was huddled into both houses among
a bundle of American papers, and there neglected. The lords and commons in
their address, in the month of February, said, that "a rebellion at that
time actually existed within the province of Massachusetts-Bay; and that those
concerned with it, had been countenanced and encouraged by unlawful
combinations and engagements, entered into by his majesty's subjects in several
of the other colonies; and therefore they besought his majesty, that he would
take the most effectual measures to inforce due obediance to the laws and
authority of the supreme legislature."—Soon <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>after, the commercial intercourse of whole
colonies, with foreign countries, and with each other, was cut off by an act of
parliament; by another several of them were intirely prohibited from the
fisheries in the seas near their coasts, on which they always depended for
their sustenance; and large reinforcements of ships and troops were immediately
sent over to general Gage.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Fruitless were all the entreaties, arguments, and eloquence
of an illustrious band of the most distinguished peers, and commoners, who
nobly and strenuously asserted the justice of our cause, to stay, or even to
mitigate the heedless fury with which these accumulated and unexampled outrages
were hurried on.—equally fruitless was the interference of the city of London,
of Bristol, and many other respectable towns in our favor. Parliament adopted
an insidious manoeuvre calculated to divide us, to establish a perpetual
auction of taxations where colony should bid against colony, all of them
uninformed what ransom would redeem their lives; and thus to extort from us, at
the point of the bayonet, the unknown sums that should be sufficient to
gratify, if possible to gratify, ministerial rapacity, with the miserable
indulgence left to us of raising, in our own mode, the prescribed tribute. What
terms more rigid and humiliating could have been dictated by remorseless
victors to conquered enemies? in our circumstances to accept them, would be to
deserve them.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Soon after the intelligence of these proceedings arrived on
this continent, general Gage, who in the course of the last year had taken
possession of the town of Boston, in the province of Massachusetts-Bay, and
still occupied it a garrison, on the 19th day of April, sent out from that
place a large detachment of his army, who made an unprovoked assault on the
inhabitants of the said province, at the town of Lexington, as appears by the
affidavits of a great number of persons, some of whom were officers and
soldiers of that detachment, murdered eight of the inhabitants, and wounded
many others. From thence the troops proceeded in warlike array to the town of
Concord, where they set upon another party of the inhabitants of the same
province, killing several and wounding more, until compelled to retreat by the
country people suddenly assembled to repel this cruel aggression. Hostilities,
thus commenced by the British troops, have been since prosecuted by them
without regard to faith or reputation.—The inhabitants of Boston being confined
within that town by the general their governor, and having, in order to procure
their dismission, entered into a treaty with him, it was stipulated that the
said inhabitants having deposited their arms with their own magistrate, should
have liberty to depart, taking with them their other effects. They accordingly
delivered up their arms, but in open violation of honour, in defiance of the
obligation of treaties, which even savage nations esteemed sacred, the governor
ordered the arms deposited as aforesaid, that they might be preserved for their
owners, to be seized by a body of soldiers; detained the greatest part of the
inhabitants in the town, and compelled the few who were permitted to retire, to
leave their most valuable effects behind.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
By this perfidy wives are separated from their husbands,
children from their parents, the aged and the sick from their relations and
friends, who wish to attend and comfort them; and those who have been used to
live in plenty and even elegance, are reduced to deplorable distress.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
The general, further emulating his ministerial masters, by a
proclamation bearing date on the 12th day of June, after venting the grossest
falsehoods and calumnies against the good people of these colonies, proceeds to
"declare them all, either by name or description, to be rebels and
traitors, to supersede the course of the common law, and instead thereof to
publish and order the use and exercise of the law martial."—His troops
have butchered our countrymen, have wantonly burnt Charlestown, besides a
considerable number of houses in other places; our ships and vessels are
seized; the necessary supplies of provisions are intercepted, and he is
exerting his utmost power to spread destruction and devastation around him.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
We have received certain intelligence, that general Carleton,
the governor of Canada, is instigating the people of that province and the
Indians to fall upon us; and we have but too much reason to apprehend, that
schemes have been formed to excite domestic enemies against us. In brief, a
part of these colonies now feel, and all of them are sure of feeling, as far as
the vengeance of administration can inflict them, the complicated calamities of
fire, sword and famine. We are reduced to the alternative of chusing an
unconditional submission to the tyranny of irritated ministers, or resistance
by force.—The latter is our choice.—We have counted the cost of this contest,
and find nothing so dreadful as voluntary slavery.—Honour, justice, and
humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our
gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive
from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding
generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them, if we basely
entail hereditary bondage upon them.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Our cause is just. Our union is perfect. Our internal
resources are great, and, if necessary, foreign assistance is undoubtedly
attainable.—We gratefully acknowledge, as signal instances of the Divine favour
towards us, that his Providence would not permit us to be called into this
severe controversy, until we were grown up to our present strength, had been
previously exercised in warlike operation, and possessed of the means of
defending ourselves. With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we
most solemnly, before God and the world, declare, that, exerting the utmost
energy of those powers, which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed
upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in
defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverence, employ for
the preservation of our liberties; being with one mind resolved to die freemen
rather than to live slaves.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Lest this declaration should disquiet the minds of our
friends and fellow-subjects in any part of the empire, we assure them that we
mean not to dissolve that union which has so long and so happily subsisted
between us, and which we sincerely wish to see restored.—Necessity has not yet
driven us into that desperate measure, or induced us to excite any other nation
to war against them.—We have not raised armies with ambitious designs of
separating from Great-Britain, and establishing independent states. We fight
not for glory or for conquest. We exhibit to mankind the remarkable spectacle
of a people attacked by unprovoked enemies, without any imputation or even
suspicion of offence. They boast of their privileges and civilization, and yet
proffer no milder conditions than servitude or death.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
In our own native land, in defence of the freedom that is
our birthright, and which we ever enjoyed till the late violation of it—for the
protection of our property, acquired solely by the honest industry of our
fore-fathers and ourselves, against violence actually offered, we have taken up
arms. We shall lay them down when hostilities shall cease on the part of the
aggressors, and all danger of their being renewed shall be removed, and not
before.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
With an humble confidence in the mercies of the supreme and
impartial Judge and Ruler of the Universe, we most devoutly implore his divine
goodness to protect us happily through this great conflict, to dispose our
adversaries to reconciliation on reasonable terms, and thereby to relieve the
empire from the calamities of civil war.</div>
<br />
* *<br />
<br />
<em>Documents Illustrative of the Formation of the Union of the American States, </em>edited by Charles C. Tansill. (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1927), 10-17Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4888906609369633887.post-36798279700043607502013-08-09T10:38:00.002-07:002013-08-18T19:40:43.179-07:00Adams: On American Foreign Policy<em>John Adams was one of the most important figures in early American diplomacy. He served abroad as minister to Holland and Britain during the period of the confederation, and was unique among American ministers in having made himself obnoxious in both Paris and London. In the aftermath of the negotiation of the Treaty of Paris, signed in late 1782, Adams expatiated on the principles and assumptions that ought to guide American foreign policy. In a letter of March 20, 1783, he observed that “Gentlemen
can never too often [be] requested to recollect” the debates that had arisen in
congress when the French treaty was in contemplation</em>: <o:p> </o:p><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;">
The Nature of those Connections,
which ought to be formed between America and Europe, will never be better
understood than they were at that time. It was then said, there is a Ballance
of Power in Europe. Nature has formed it. Practice and Habit had confirmed it,
and it must exist forever. It may be disturbed for a time, by the accidental
Removal of a Weight from one Scale to the other, but there will be a continual
Effort to restore the Equilibrium. </div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<em>In an earlier communication to Secretary Robert Livingston and congress
(Feb 5, 1783), Adams recurred to the the assumptions and objectives that
animated the debates over foreign policy in the first congress:</em> </div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;">
If there are in congress any of
those gentlemen, with whom I had the honor to serve in the years 1775 and 1776,
they may possibly remember, that in arguing in favor of sending ministers to
Versailles, to propose a connection with that Court, I laid it down as a first
principle, that we should calculate all our measures and foreign negotiations
in such a manner, as to avoid a too great dependence upon any one power of
Europe—to avoid all obligations and temptations to take any part in future
European wars; that the business of America with Europe was commerce, not
politics or war; and, above all, that it never could be our interest to ruin
Great Britain, or injure or weaken her any further than should be necessary to
support our independence, and our alliances, and that, as soon as Great Britain
should be brought to a temper to acknowledge our sovereignty and our alliances,
and consent that we should maintain the one, and fulfil the others, it would be
our interest and duty to be her friends, as well as the friends of all the
other powers of Europe, and enemies to none.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;">
We are now happily arrived, through
many tremendous tempests, at that period. Great Britain respects us as
sovereign States, and respects all our political engagements with foreign
nations; and as long as she continues in this temper of wisdom, it is our duty
to respect her. We have accordingly made a treaty with her and mutually sworn
to be friends. Through the whole period of our warfare and negotiations, I
confess I have never lost sight of the principles and the system, with which I
set out, which appeared to me to be the sentiments of congress with great
unanimity; and I have no reason to believe that any change of opinion has taken
place. . . .</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<em>From the same letter, Adams gives his “idea of the
qualifications necessary for an American foreign minister in general, and
particularly and above all to the Court of St. James.”</em> <o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;">
In the first place, he should have
had an education in classical learning, and in the knowledge of general
history, ancient and modern, and particularly the history of France, England,
Holland, and America. He should be well versed in the principles of ethics, of
the law of nature and nations, of legislation and government, of the civil
Roman law, of the laws of England and the United States, of the public law of
Europe, and in the letters, memoirs, and histories of those great men, who have
heretofore shone in the diplomatic order, and conducted the affairs of nations,
and the world. He should be of an age to possess a maturity of judgment,
arising from experience in business. He should be active, attentive, and
industrious; and above all, he should possess an upright heart and an
independent spirit, and should be one who decidedly makes the interest of his country,
not the policy of any other nation, nor his own private ambition or interest,
or those of his family, friends, and connections, the rule of his conduct.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<em>Adams is generally regarded as a realist, but he forecast improvement for humanity from the independence of America:</em></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
America will grow with astonishing Rapidity and England France and every other Nation in Europe will be the better for her prosperity. Peace which is her dear Delight will be her Wealth and Glory, for I cannot see the Seed of a War with any part of the World in future but with Great Britain, and such States as may be weak enough, if any such there should be, to become her Allies." </blockquote>
<br />
* * *<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
The first letter, John Adams to James Warren, March 20, 1783, is cited in James Hutson, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">John Adams and the Diplomacy of the American
Revolution</i> (Lexington, 1980), pp. 28-29; the letter to Livingston is in
Volume 8 of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Works of John Adams</i>,
available at the On-Line Library of Liberty. The final letter, making peace our dear delight, is in <em>The Papers of John Adams</em>, 6:348. </div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4888906609369633887.post-18709201402583251422013-07-29T10:29:00.000-07:002013-07-29T10:33:17.583-07:00Ferguson: The Case for War<em>Adam Ferguson, a member of the Republic of Letters and the distinguished author of </em>Essay on the History of Civil Society<em> (1767), supported the determination of the British government to repress the rebellion of the American colonies. His short speech in the House of Lords, in 1775, distills the basis of the government's policy. </em><br />
<em></em><br />
<em>* * *</em><br />
<em></em><br />
That gentlemen should differ about some particular points of
colony government, as, for example, how far it was expedient or inexpedient to
tax America, considering how much that question was involved in difficulty, and
how much could be plausibly said on the one side or the other, was not much to
be wondered at: but it was matter of no small surprise to him, that they were
still likely to differ in opinion, when the question was no longer confined to
taxation, or to any particular exercise of the authority of Great Britain, but
extended to the very being of the sovereignty itself, and to those rights of
which this kingdom had been in possession ever since the existence of the
colonies. The honourable magistrate who spoke last had said, that the congress had
declared they did not aim at independence. They certainly had done so in
general terms: but how did their particular claims correspond to this general
assertion? He was afraid, if these were examined, it would appear that the
pretensions of the congress went the length of a total exemption from the power
and authority of parliament. <br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
They had declared in the most express terms, that parliament
had no right to intermeddle with their provisions for the support of civil
government, or the administration of justice. Their language was, that while
parliament pursued its plan of civil government within its own jurisdiction,
they insisted upon pursuing theirs without molestation, plainly claiming an
authority in each of the colony assemblies, exclusive of that parliament. An
exclusive right of legislation in all matters of internal policy had been, in
the most express terms, asserted by them, and not only the late acts of
parliament more particularly complained of, but every other which touched upon
the internal polity of the colonies, had been treated by them as unjust
encroachments of parliament upon the rights of a legislature as independent as
itself.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
In military matters, their pretensions were equally
extravagant. They expressly denied that Great Britain had a right to keep a
single soldier in the whole extensive continent of America, without the consent
of the legislature of that colony where the troops were kept. With regard to
revenue, had not a declaration been made. in words intelligible to all mankind,
that America never would be taxed by parliament, unless they refused to
contribute their proportion to the common expences of the state? They even
knew, that any reasonable sum would be accepted of; but they would not gratify
this country so far as to say that they would contribute a single shilling. The
only particular in which they seemed inclined to admit the authority of
parliament was in what related to the regulation of their trade: even with
regard to that, they expressed themselves with a sufficient degree of caution;
but in every thing else they asserted an absolute independence on parliament.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
In what manner things had been brought to that unhappy
dilemma, did not seem the proper object of their present enquiry. The present
object was to remedy the evil. Were he to give his opinion upon that subject,
he should be apt to say, that no ministry, since the time of the Stamp-Act, had
been altogether free of blame: but he should at the same time add, that,
perhaps more than any ministry, those had been to blame, who, not satisfied
with expressing their disapprobation of particular measures, had argued, both
within and without doors, against the authority of the supreme legislature
itself; who, from an excess of zeal in support of America, seemed too much to
forget the interest of the mother-country; and, from an apprehension lest the
colonies should be ruled with too heavy a hand, seemed inclined to adopt
measures which had a tendency to exempt them from the dominion of Great Britain
altogether, and to erect them into so many sovereign independent states. </div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
But instead of investigating the causes of the evil, it was
more material now to consider what was proper to be done to remedy it, and in
this he saw but one choice, either to support with vigour the authority of
Great Britain, or to abandon America altogether. Some speculative men have
said, and published their opinions to the world, that it would be no such fatal
stroke to Britain as is generally imagined, were America to be abandoned
altogether: he had not opinion enough of his own foresight to say with certainty
what the consequence would be, but so much benefit had he reaped from these
speculations as to hope that the prosperity of Great Britain would not be
desperate even were such an event to happen. But who would be bold enough to
advise such a measure? and who could, with certainty, answer for the effects of
it? If no person would, what remained, but that they should exert every nerve
to reduce their rebellious subjects to obedience? After they had reduced them,
and convinced them of their inability to resist the power of this country,
then, and not till then, would be the time to shew them all possible
indulgence. Any further concession now would be considered as extorted from
them by their fears, not as the voluntary effect of their favour. </div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
But can this country reduce them to obedience, or must the
contest be given up for want of power? If it must, there is no help for it:
but, at least, let us put it to the trial; for his own part, he could not
entertain a doubt of it; he did, indeed, see that those were mistaken who said
the Americans would not fight: but those were at least, as much mistaken, if
there were any such, who would entertain a doubt of their being reduced by a
proper exertion of the power of Great-Britain. As he could not doubt of the
strength of Great Britain to reduce them, so he hoped if that strength was
exerted it would be done effectually. If a force is sent to America, both
prudence and humanity required that it should be such a one as, humanly
speaking, would carry its point. The error hitherto had been to have too small
a force there; to continue the same error still, was to protract the horrors of
a civil war. He did not mean merely that such a force should be sent as would
be sufficient to beat their opponents; it ought to be such a one as would
deprive them of all idea of resistance. </div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
* * *</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Parliamentary History
of England</i>, XV: 737-40, October 26, 1775, House of Lords. </div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4888906609369633887.post-43026936924399852412013-07-26T10:00:00.001-07:002014-08-21T12:51:14.239-07:00Burke: On The Disutility of Force<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Edmund Burke’s speech on conciliation with
America is probably the greatest oration ever delivered in the English parliament. Given on March 22, 1775 in the House of Commons, it was a tour de force and
an instant classic. Elsewhere I have excerpted the passages in his address
explicating the <a href="http://the-american-experiment.blogspot.com/2011/07/edmund-burke-speech-on-conciliation.html">sources of American freedom</a>. Here he gives his main proposition
of peace and answers the hardliners who wanted a showdown with refractory
colonies. He unfolds a perceptive argument showing the disutility of force as a
means of keeping the colonies subservient, urges a return to the “salutary
neglect” governing American policy until 1763, and gives a profound exposition
of the nature of Britain's imperial constitution. Only a British constitution that recognized colonial freedom, he argued, could keep the colonists within
the empire. </i><br />
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<o:p> </o:p>* * *</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
The <span style="font-size: 10pt;">PROPOSITION</span> is peace. Not peace through the
medium of war; not peace to be hunted through the labyrinth of intricate and
endless negotiations; not peace to arise out of universal discord, fomented
from principle, in all parts of the Empire; not peace to depend on the
juridical determination of perplexing questions, or the precise marking the
shadowy boundaries of a complex government. It is simple peace, sought in its
natural course and its ordinary haunts. It is peace sought in the spirit of
peace, and laid in principles purely pacific. I propose, by removing the ground
of the difference, and by restoring <i>the former unsuspecting confidence of
the Colonies in the mother country,</i> to give permanent satisfaction to your
people; and, far from a scheme of ruling by discord, to reconcile them to each
other in the same act, and by the bond of the very same interest, which
reconciles them to British government.<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="5"></a></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
My idea is
nothing more. Refined policy ever has been the parent of confusion, and ever
will be so long as the world endures. Plain good intention, which is as easily
discovered at the first view as fraud is surely detected at last, is (let me
say) of no mean force in the government of mankind. Genuine simplicity of heart
is a healing and cementing principle. My plan, therefore, being formed upon the
most simple grounds imaginable, may disappoint some people when they hear it.
It has nothing to recommend it to the pruriency of curious ears. There is
nothing at all new and captivating in it. It has nothing of the splendor of the
project which has been lately laid upon your table by the noble lord in the
blue ribbon [Lord North]. It does not propose to fill your lobby
with squabbling colony agents, who will require the interposition of your mace
at every instant to keep the peace among them. It does not institute a
magnificent auction of finance, where captivated provinces come to general
ransom by bidding against each other, until you knock down the hammer, and
determine a proportion of payments beyond all the powers of algebra to equalize
and settle.<br />
<br />
* * *</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Burke goes on to
describe the growth in American population, trade, and agriculture, arguing
that it shows that England ought not “to trifle with so large a mass of the
interests and feelings of the human race. You could at no time do so without
guilt; and, be assured, you will not do it long with impunity.” The growth in American
agricultural output meant that the old world had increasingly been fed by the
new: “The scarcity which you have felt would have been a desolating famine, if
this child of your old age, with a true filial piety, with a Roman charity, had
not put the full breast of its youthful exuberance to the mouth of its
exhausted parent.” All this before descanting on the exploits of New England
fishermen: <o:p></o:p></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Pray, sir, what
in the world is equal to it? Pass by the other parts, and look at the manner in
which the people of New England have of late carried on the whale fishery.
While we follow them among the tumbling mountains of ice, and behold them
penetrating into the deepest frozen recesses of Hudson’s Bay and Davis’
Straits—while we are looking for them beneath the arctic circle, we hear that
they have pierced into the opposite region of polar cold—that they are at the
antipodes, and engaged under the frozen Serpent of the south. Falkland Island,
which seemed too remote and romantic an object for the grasp of national
ambition, is but a stage and resting-place in the progress of their victorious
industry.<br />
</div>
Nor is the
equinoctial heat more discouraging to them than the accumulated winter of both
the poles. We know that while some of them draw the line, and strike the
harpoon on the coast of Africa, others run the longitude, and pursue their
gigantic game along the coast of Brazil. No sea but what is vexed by their
fisheries. No climate that is not witness to their toils. Neither the
perseverance of Holland, nor the activity of France, nor the dexterous and firm
sagacity of English enterprise, ever carried this most perilous mode of hard
industry to the extent to which it has been pushed by this recent people—a
people who are still, as it were, but in the gristle, and not yet hardened into
the bone of manhood. When I contemplate these things—when I know that the
Colonies in general owe little or nothing to any care of ours, and that they
are not squeezed into this happy form by the constraints of watchful and
suspicious government, but that, through a wise and salutary neglect, a
generous nature has been suffered to take her own way to perfection—when I
reflect upon these effects—when I see how profitable they have been to us, I feel
all the pride of power sink, and all presumption in the wisdom of human
contrivances melt and die away within me. My rigor relents. I pardon something
to the spirit of liberty. <br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
I am sensible,
sir, that all which I have asserted in my detail is admitted in the gross; but
that quite a different conclusion is drawn from it. America, gentlemen say, is
a noble object. It is an object well worth fighting for. Certainly it is, if
fighting a people be the best way of gaining them. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
First, sir, permit
me to observe, that the use of force alone is but <i>temporary.</i> It may
subdue for a moment, but it does not remove the necessity of subduing again;
and a nation is not governed which is perpetually to be conquered. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
My next
objection is its <i>uncertainty.</i> Terror is not always the effect of force;
and an armament is not a victory. If you do not succeed, you are without
resource; for, conciliation failing, force remains; but, force failing, no
further hope of reconciliation is left. Power and authority are sometimes
bought by kindness but they can never be begged as alms by an impoverished and
defeated violence.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
A further
objection to force is, that you <i>impair the object</i> by your very endeavors
to preserve it. The thing you fought for is not the thing which you recover;
but depreciated, sunk, wasted, and consumed in the contest. Nothing less will
content me than <i>whole</i> America. I do not choose to consume its strength
along with our own, because in all parts it is the British strength that I
consume. I do not choose to be caught by a foreign enemy at the end of this
exhausting conflict, and still less in the midst of it.<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="txt7"> </a>I may
escape; but I can make no insurance against such an event. Let me add, that I
do not choose wholly to break the American spirit, because it is the spirit
that has made the country. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
These, sir, are
my reasons for not entertaining that high opinion of untried force, by which
many gentlemen, for whose sentiments in other particulars I have great respect,
seem to be so greatly captivated.<br />
<br />
* * *</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Burke subsequently
explores the sources of American’s love of freedom (<a href="http://the-american-experiment.blogspot.com/2011/07/edmund-burke-speech-on-conciliation.html">see here</a>), buttressing his view that changing the temper and character of the colonies was
impossible: <o:p></o:p></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
We can not, I
fear, falsify the pedigree of this fierce people, and persuade them that they
are not sprung from a nation in whose veins the blood of freedom circulates.
The language in which they would hear you tell them this tale would detect the
imposition. Your speech would betray you. An Englishman is the unfittest person
on earth to argue another Englishman into slavery. <a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="41"></a></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
I think it is
nearly as little in our power to change their republican religion as their free
descent; or to substitute the Roman Catholic as a penalty, or the Church of
England as an improvement. The mode of inquisition and dragooning is going out
of fashion in the Old World, and I should not confide much to their efficacy in
the new. The education of the Americans is also on the same unalterable bottom
with their religion. You can not persuade them to burn their books of curious
science; to banish their lawyers from their courts of law; or to quench the
lights of their assemblies, by refusing to choose those persons who are best
read in their privileges. It would be no less impracticable to think of wholly
annihilating the popular assemblies in which these lawyers sit. The army, by which
we must govern in their place, would be far more chargeable to us; not quite so
effectual; and perhaps, in the end, fully as difficult to be kept in obedience.<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="42"></a></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
But let us
suppose all these moral difficulties got over. The ocean remains. You can not
pump this dry; and as long as it continues in its present bed, so long all the
causes which weaken authority by distance will continue. </div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse: collapse; margin: auto auto auto 0.85pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in .85pt 0in .85pt; mso-table-layout-alt: fixed;">
<tbody>
<tr style="mso-yfti-firstrow: yes; mso-yfti-irow: 0;">
<td style="background-color: transparent; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0in 0.85pt; width: 7pt;" width="14"><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0in 0.85pt; width: 384pt;" width="768"><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
“Ye gods!
annihilate but space and time,</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 1; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes;">
<td style="background-color: transparent; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0in 0.85pt; width: 7pt;" width="14"><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0in 0.85pt; width: 384pt;" width="768"><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
And
make two lovers happy!”</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
was a pious and
passionate prayer, but just as reasonable as many of these serious wishes of
very grave and solemn politicians. <a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="43"></a>If, then, sir, it seems
almost desperate to think of any alternative course for changing the moral
causes (and not quite easy to remove the natural) which produce the prejudices
irreconcilable to the late exercise of our authority, but that the spirit
infallibly will continue, and, continuing, will produce such effects as now
embarrass us, the <i>second</i> mode under consideration is to prosecute that
spirit in its overt acts as <i>criminal.</i> <a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="44"></a><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
At this
proposition I must pause a moment. The thing seems a great deal too big for my
ideas of jurisprudence. It should seem, to my way of conceiving such matters,
that there is a very wide difference in reason and policy between the mode of
proceeding on the irregular conduct of scattered individuals, or even of bands
of men, who disturb order within the State, and the civil dissensions which
may, from time to time, on great questions, agitate the several communities
which compose a great empire. It looks to me to be narrow and pedantic to apply
the ordinary ideas of criminal justice to this great public contest. I do not
know the method of drawing up an indictment against a whole people. I can not insult
and ridicule the feelings of millions of my fellow creatures, as Sir Edward
Coke insulted one excellent individual at the bar.<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="txt11"> </a>I am not
ripe to pass sentence on the gravest public bodies, intrusted with magistracies
of great authority and dignity, and charged with the safety of their fellow
citizens, upon the very same title that I am. I really think that, for wise
men, this is not judicious; for sober men, not decent; for minds tinctured with
humanity, not mild and merciful. <a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="45"></a></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
Perhaps, sir, I
am mistaken in my idea of an empire, as distinguished from a single state or
kingdom. But my idea of it is this: that an empire is the aggregate of many
states, under one common head, whether this head be a monarch or a presiding
republic. It does, in such constitutions, frequently happen (and nothing but
the dismal, cold, dead uniformity of servitude can prevent its happening) that
the subordinate parts have many local privileges and immunities. Between these
privileges and the supreme common authority, the line may be extremely nice. Of
course, disputes—often, too, very bitter disputes, and much ill blood, will
arise. But, tho every privilege is an exemption, in the case, from the ordinary
exercise of the supreme authority, it is no denial of it. The claim of a
privilege seems rather, <i>ex vi termini,</i> to imply a superior power; for to
talk of the privileges of a state or of a person who has no superior, is hardly
any better than speaking nonsense. <a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="46"></a></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
Now, in such
unfortunate quarrels among the component parts of a great political union of
communities, I can scarcely conceive anything more completely imprudent than
for the head of the Empire to insist that, if any privilege is pleaded against
his will or his acts, that his <i>whole</i> authority is denied; instantly to
proclaim rebellion, to beat to arms, and to put the offending Provinces under
the ban. Will not this, sir, very soon teach the Provinces to make no
distinctions on their part? Will it not teach them that the government against
which a claim of liberty is tantamount to high treason, is a government to
which submission is equivalent to slavery? It may not always be quite
convenient to impress dependent communities with such an idea. <a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="47"></a></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
We are, indeed,
in all disputes with the Colonies, by the necessity of things, the judge. It is
true, sir; but I confess that the character of judge in my own cause is a thing
that frightens me. Instead of filling me with pride, I am exceedingly humbled
by it. I can not proceed with a stern, assured, judicial confidence, until I
find myself in something more like a judicial character. I must have these
hesitations as long as I am compelled to recollect that, in my little reading
upon such contests as these, the sense of mankind has at least as often decided
against the superior as the subordinate power. Sir, let me add, too, that the
opinion of my having some abstract right in my favor would not put me much at
my ease in passing sentence, unless I could be sure that there were no rights
which in their exercise under certain circumstances, were not the most odious
of all wrongs, and the most vexatious of all injustice. Sir, these
considerations have great weight with me, when I find things so circumstanced
that I see the same party at once a civil litigant against me in point of right
and a culprit before me: while I sit as criminal judge on acts of his whose
moral quality is to be decided on upon the merits of that very litigation. Men
are every now and then put, by the complexity of human affairs, into strange
situations; but justice is the same, let the judge be in what situation he
will. <a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="48"></a></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
In this
situation, let us seriously and coolly ponder. What is it we have got by all
our menaces, which have been many and ferocious? What advantage have we derived
from the penal laws we have passed, and which, for the time, have been severe
and numerous? What advances have we made toward our object by the sending of a
force which, by land and sea, is no contemptible strength? Has the disorder
abated? Nothing less. When I see things in this situation, after such confident
hopes, bold promises, and active exertions, I can not, for my life, avoid a
suspicion that the plan itself is not correctly right. <a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="49"></a></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
If, then, the removal of the causes of this spirit of
American liberty be, for the greater part, or rather entirely, impracticable;
if the ideas of criminal process be inapplicable, or, if applicable, are in the
highest degree inexpedient, what way yet remains? No way is open but the third
and last—to comply with the American spirit as necessary, or, if you please, to
submit to it as a necessary evil. <a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="50"></a></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
If we adopt this mode, if we mean to conciliate and concede,
let us see, of what nature the concessions ought to be. To ascertain the nature
of our concession, we must look at their complaint. The Colonies complain that
they have not the characteristic mark and seal of British freedom. They
complain that they are taxed in Parliament in which they are not represented.
If you mean to satisfy them at all, you must satisfy them with regard to this
complaint. If you mean to please any people, you must give them the boon which
they ask; not what you may think better for them, but of a kind totally
different. Such an act may be a wise regulation, but is no concession, whereas
our present theme is the mode of giving satisfaction. <a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="51"></a></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
The question with me is, not whether you have a right to
render your people miserable, but whether it is not your interest to make them
happy. It is not what a lawyer tells me I <i>may</i> do, but what humanity,
reason, and justice tell me I <i>ought</i> to do. Is a politic act the worse
for being a generous one? Is no concession proper but that which is made from
your want of right to keep what you grant? Or does it lessen the grace or
dignity of relaxing in the exercise of an odious claim, because you have your
evidence-room full of titles, and your magazines stuffed with arms to enforce
them?<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="52"></a></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Such is steadfastly my opinion of the absolute necessity of
keeping up the concord of this Empire by a unity of spirit, tho in a diversity
of operations, that, if I were sure the Colonists had, at their leaving this
country, sealed a regular compact of servitude; that they had solemnly abjured
all the rights of citizens; that they had made a vow to renounce all ideas of
liberty for them and their posterity to all generations, yet I should hold
myself obliged to conform to the temper I found universally prevalent in my own
day, and to govern two millions of men, impatient of servitude, on the
principles of freedom. I am not determining a point of law. I am restoring
tranquillity, and the general character and situation of a people must
determine what sort of government is fitted for them. That point nothing else
can or ought to determine. <a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="53"></a></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
My idea, therefore, without considering whether we yield as
matter of right, or grant as matter of favor, is <i>to admit the people of our
Colonies into an interest in the Constitution,</i> and, by recording that
admission in the journals of Parliament, to give them as strong an assurance as
the nature of the thing will admit, that we mean for ever to adhere to that
solemn declaration of systematic indulgence. . . .<br />
<br />
* * *<br />
<br />
<em>Burke explores the ways and means of settling the revenue question and reducing other causes of asperity. Then comes his rousing conclusion. </em></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
My hold of the
Colonies is in the close affection which grows from common names, from kindred
blood, from similar privileges, and equal protection. These are ties which, tho
light as air, are as strong as links of iron. Let the Colonies always keep the
idea of their civil rights associated with your government; they will cling and
grapple to you, and no force under heaven will be of power to tear them from
their allegiance. But let it be once understood that your government may be one
thing, and their privileges another; that these two things may exist without
any mutual relation; the cement is gone; the cohesion is loosened; and
everything hastens to decay and dissolution. <a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="65"></a></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
As long as you
have the wisdom to keep the sovereign authority of this country as the
sanctuary of liberty, the sacred temple consecrated to our common faith;
wherever the chosen race and sons of England worship Freedom, they will turn
their faces toward you. The more they multiply, the more friends you will have.
The more ardently they love liberty, the more perfect will be their obedience.
Slavery they can have anywhere. It is a weed that grows in every soil. They may
have it from Spain; they may have it from Prussia; but, until you become lost
to all feeling of your true interest and your natural dignity, freedom they can
have from none but you. This is the commodity of price, of which you have the
monopoly. This is the true Act of Navigation, which binds to you the commerce
of the Colonies, and through them secures to you the wealth of the world. Deny
them this participation of freedom, and you break that sole bond which
originally made, and must still preserve, the unity of the Empire. Do not
entertain so weak an imagination as that your registers and your bonds, your
affidavits and your sufferances, your cockets and your clearances, are what
form the great securities of your commerce. Do not dream that your letters of
office, and your instructions, and your suspending clauses, are the things that
hold together the great contexture of this mysterious whole. These things do
not make your government. Dead instruments, passive tools as they are, it is
the spirit of the English communion that gives all their life and efficacy to
them. It is the spirit of the English Constitution, which, infused through the
mighty mass, pervades, feeds, unites, invigorates, vivifies every part of the
empire, even down to the minutest member. <a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="66"></a></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
All this, I
know well enough, will sound wild and chimerical to the profane herd of those
vulgar and mechanical politicians, who have no place among us; a sort of people
who think that nothing exists but what is gross and material, and who,
therefore, far from being qualified to be directors of the great movement of
empire, are not fit to turn a wheel in the machine. But to men truly initiated
and rightly taught, these ruling and master principles, which, in the opinion
of such men as I have mentioned, have no substantial existence, are in truth
everything and all in all. Magnanimity in politics is not seldom the truest
wisdom; and a great empire and little minds go ill together. If we are
conscious of our situation, and glow with zeal to fill our place as becomes our
station and ourselves, we ought to auspicate all our public proceeding on
America with the old warning of the Church, <i>sursum corda!</i> We ought to
elevate our minds to the greatness of that trust to which the order of
Providence has called us. By adverting to the dignity of this high calling, our
ancestors have turned a savage wilderness into a glorious empire, and have made
the most extensive and the only honorable conquests not by destroying, but by
promoting, the wealth, the number, the happiness of the human race. Let us get
an American revenue as we have got an American empire. English privileges have
made it all that it is; English privileges alone will make it all that it can
be.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<o:p> ***</o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<o:p></o:p> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<o:p>Edmund Burke, <a href="http://www.bartleby.com/268/6/1.html">On Conciliation with America</a>, March 22, 1775, William Jennings Bryan, ed., <em>The World's Greatest Orations</em>, Vol VI.</o:p></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4888906609369633887.post-35438127810829744822013-07-25T14:39:00.001-07:002013-07-26T10:50:40.243-07:00The Lincoln Legend<em>This evocation of the extraordinary contrasts in the life and character of Abraham Lincoln comes from Carl Schurz. Schurz was himself a grand figure in American history. He arrived in this country fleeing persecution in his native Germany, a casualty of Europe's failed bid for liberal principles in 1848; for the next six decades he was a commanding and beneficent intellectual force in the nation's debates. The following passage comes at the end of his beautiful short book on Lincoln, first published in </em>The Atlantic Monthly <em>in 1891.</em> <br />
<br />
* * *<br />
<br />
To the
younger generation Abraham Lincoln has already become a half-mythical figure,
which, in the haze of historic distance, grows to more and more heroic
proportions, but also loses in distinctness of outline and feature.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is indeed the common lot of popular
heroes; but the Lincoln legend will be more than ordinarily apt to become
fanciful, as his individuality, assembling seemingly incongruous qualities and
forces in a character at the same time grand and most lovable, was so unique,
and his character so abounding in startling contrasts.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As the state of society in which Abraham
Lincoln grew up passes away, the world will read with increasing wonder of the
man who, not only of the humblest origin, but remaining the simplest and more
unpretending of citizens, was raised to a position of power unprecedented in
our history; who was the gentlest and most peace-loving of mortals, unable to
see any creature suffer without a pang in his own breast, and suddenly found
himself called to conduct the greatest and bloodiest of our wars; who wielded
the power of government when stern resolution and relentless force were the
order of the day, and then won and ruled the popular mind and heart by the
tender sympathies of his nature; who was a cautious conservative by temperament
and mental habit, and led the most sudden and sweeping social revolution of our
time; who, preserving his homely speech and rustic manner even in the most
conspicuous position of that period, drew upon himself the scoffs of political
society, and then thrilled the soul of mankind with utterances of wonderful
beauty and grandeur; who, in his heart the best friend of the defeated South, was
murdered because a crazy fanatic took him for its most cruel enemy; who, while
in power, was beyond measure lampooned and maligned by sectional passion and an
excited party spirit, and around whose bier friend and foe gathered to praise
him -- which they have since never ceased to do -- as one of the greatest of
Americans and the best of men.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4888906609369633887.post-40960050086848015612013-07-24T15:27:00.000-07:002014-02-18T17:00:36.362-08:00The Causes of the French Revolution<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The following extract
comes from Edward Everett’s 1834 eulogy of Lafayette, the French aristocrat who won the
trust of General Washington during the War of the American Revolution, and
whose valiant contributions to the cause were celebrated in his triumphal tour of the
United States in 1824 and 1825. Everett, one of the most respected orators of the age
and the quintessential voice of New England Whiggism, gives in passing a
penetrating judgment of the causes of the French Revolution and its
relationship to the revolution in America. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></i><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>* * *<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
At length
the mighty crisis came on.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The French
revolution draws near, -- that stupendous event of which it is impossible to be
silent, -- next to impossible to speak.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Louis XV. once said to<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>a
courtier, "This French monarchy is fourteen hundred years old; it cannot
last long."<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Such was the terrific
sentiment which, even in the bosom of his base pleasures, stole into the
conscience of the modern Sardanapalus.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>But in that mysterious and bewildering chain of connection which binds
together the fortunes of states and of men, the last convulsive effort of this
worn-out and decrepit monarchy, in which the spasmodic remains of her strength
were exhausted, and her finances plunged into irretrievable confusion, was the
American alliance.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This corrupt and
feeble despotism, trembling on the verge of an abyss, towards which time and
events were urging it, is made to hold out a strong and helping hand to assist
the rising republic into the family of nations.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The generous spirits whom she sent to lead her armies to the triumphs of
republicanism in America, came back to demand for their own country, and to
assert on their own soil, those political privileges for which they had been
contending in America.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The process of
argument was short.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If this plan of
government, administered by responsible agents, is good for America, it is good
for France.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If our brethren in the
United States will not submit to power assumed by men not accountable for its
abuse, why should we?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If we have done
wisely and well in going to shed our blood for this constitutional liberty
beyond the Atlantic, let us be ready to shed it in the same great cause, for
our fathers, for our friends, for ourselves, in our native land.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Is it possible to find, I will not say a
sound and sufficient answer to this argument, but an answer which would be
thought sound and sufficient by the majority of ardent tempers and inquisitive
minds?<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
The
atrocious, the unexampled, the ungodly abuses of the reign of terror have made
the very name of the French revolution hateful to mankind.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The blood chills, the flesh creeps, the hair
stands on end, at the recital of its horrors; and no slight degree of the odium
they occasion is unavoidably reflected on all who had any agency in bringing it
on.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The subsequent events in Europe have
also involved the French revolution in a deep political unpopularity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is unpopular in Great Britain, in the rest
of Europe, in America, in France itself; and not a little of the unpopularity
falls on every one whose name is prominently connected with it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>All this is prejudice, -- natural prejudice,
if you please, -- but still prejudice.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The French Revolution was the work of sheer necessity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It began in the act of the court, casting
about in despair for the means of facing the frightful dilapidation of the
finances.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Louis XV. was right; the
monarchy could not go on.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The revolution
was inevitable as fate.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
I go
farther.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Penetrated as I am to
heart-sickness when I peruse the tale of its atrocities, I do not scruple to
declare, that the French revolution, as it existed in the purposes of Lafayette
and his associates, and while it obeyed their impulse, and so long as it was
controlled by them, was, notwithstanding the melancholy excesses which stained
even its early stages, a work of righteous reform; that justice, humanity, and
religion demanded it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I maintain this
with some reluctance, because it is a matter in respect to which all are not of
one mind, and I would not willingly say any thing on this occasion which could
awaken a single discordant feeling.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But
I speak from a sense of duty; and, standing as I do over the grave of
Lafayette, I may not, if my feeble voice can prevent it, allow the fame of one
of the purest men that ever lived to be sacrificed to a prejudice; to be
overwhelmed with the odium of abuses which he did not foresee, which, if he had
foreseen, he could not have averted, and with which he had himself no personal
connection, but as their victim.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is
for this reason I maintain that the French revolution, as conceived by Lafayette,
was a work of righteous reform.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Read the
history of France, from the revocation of the edict of Nantes downwards.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Reflect upon the scandalous influence which
dictated that inhuman decree to the dotage of Louis XIV., a decree which cost
France as much blood as flowed under the guillotine.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Trace the shameful annals of the regency, and
the annals, not less shameful, of Louis XV.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Consider the overgrown wealth and dissoluteness of the clergy, and the
arrogance and corruption of the nobility, possessing together a vast proportion
of the property, and bearing no part of the burdens of the state.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Recollect the abuses of the law, -- high
judicial places venal in the market, -- warrants of arrest issued to the number
of one hundred and fifty thousand in the single reign of Louis XV., often-times
in blank, to court favorites, to be filled up with what names, for what
prisons, for what times they pleased.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Add to this oppression of the peasantry by iniquitous taxes that have become proverbial in the history of misgovernment, and the outlawry of
one twenty-fourth part of the population of Protestants, who were forbidden to
leave the kingdom, subject to be shot if they crossed the frontier, but deprived
of the protection of the government at home, their contracts annulled, their
children declared illegitimate, and their ministers -- who might venture in
dark forests and dreary caverns, to conduct their prohibited devotions --
doomed to the scaffold.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As late as 1745,
two Protestant ministers were executed in France for performing their sacred
functions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Could men bear these things
in a country like France, a reading, inquiring country, with the success of the
American revolution before their eyes, and at the close of the eighteenth
century?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Can any man who has Anglo-Saxon
blood in his veins hesitate for an answer?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Did not England shake off less abuses than these a century and a half
before?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Had not a paltry unconstitutional
tax, neither in amount nor in principle be named with the <em>taille</em> or the <em>gabelle</em>,
just put the continent of America in a flame?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>and was it possible that the young officers of the French army should
come back to their native land, from the war of political emancipation waged on
this continent, and sit down contented under the old abuses at home?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It was not possible.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The revolution was as inevitable as fate, and
the only question was, by whose agency was it brought on.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
***</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Edward Everett, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=wV8vAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA7-PA38&dq=Such+was+the+terrific+sentiment+which,+even+in+the+bosom+of+his+base+pleasures,+stole+into+the+conscience+of+the+modern+Sardanapalus.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=NEDwUcqxN5KtqwGZhoHACQ&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepag"><span style="color: blue;">Eulogy
on Lafayette, Delivered in Faneuil Hall, At the Request of the Young Men of
Boston</span></a></i>, September 6, 1834. <o:p></o:p></div>
<o:p> </o:p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4888906609369633887.post-33899706833798230972013-07-08T18:58:00.000-07:002013-08-21T10:56:25.571-07:00A Feast for the Mind<i>From William Wirt, Eulogy of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, 1826</i><br />
<br />
* * *<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 18.0pt; mso-hyphenate: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Baskerville Old Face";">
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Baskerville Old Face";"><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
What a feast for the mind may we not expect from the
published letters of these excellent men! They were both masters in this way,
though somewhat contrasted. Mr. Adams, plain, nervous, and emphatic, the
thought couched in the fewest and strongest words, and striking with a kind of
epigrammatic force.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Mr. Jefferson,
flowing with easy and careless melody, the language at the same time pruned of
every redundant word, and giving the thought with the happiest precision, the
aptest words dropping unbidden and unsought into their places, as if they had
fallen from the skies; and so beautiful, so felicitous, as to fill the mind
with a succession of delightful surprises, while the judgement is, at the same
time, made captive by the closely compacted energy of the argument.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Mr. Jefferson's style is so easy and
harmonious, as to have led the superficial readers to remark, that he was
deficient in strength: as if ruggedness and abruptness were essential to
strength.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Mr. Jefferson's strength was
inherent in the thoughts and conceptions, though hidden by the light and
graceful vestments which he threw over them.</div>
</span><br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4888906609369633887.post-46894901870480107692013-07-04T16:37:00.000-07:002013-08-21T10:54:03.935-07:00On the Death of Madison<em>From a eulogy by James Barbour after the death of James Madison in 1836. It initially appeared in the December 12, 1836 issue of</em> Niles Weekly Register<em>.</em> <br />
<br />
* * *<br />
<br />
In thus meeting together to offer our homage to the
exceeding worth of our departed friend, while we do justice to our own
feelings, and to the memory of the dead, we follow the custom which prevailed
when the Father of his Country died -- a custom that obtained in the best times
of ancient manners: for the free states of old were accustomed thus to
commemorate the funeral of their patriots and sages.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is a good custom, that should be cherished
by freemen.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is the award of posterity
sitting in judgement on the actions and the life of a distinguished citizen who
has finished his course.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While honorable
to the dead, it is an incentive to the living.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Who is he, solicitous for posthumous fame, that darling object of
ingenuous minds, that will not be impelled onward in his virtuous course by the
honors every where offered to the memory of Madison?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is a terror likewise to the wicked.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What great criminal is so hardened in his iniquity
that will not tremble when, in anticipation, he sees posterity passing on his
crimes, and, instead of honor, reproach awaiting his memory?<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Besides, the life of a good and great man, when fairly
delineated and committed to history, will survive when the pyramids of Egypt
shall have passed away: it will stand forever a lofty beacon amid the
vicissitudes and the wastes of time.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Athens and Rome, the master states of antiquity, where liberty once
delighted to dwell, for two thousand years have been doomed to ignorance, to
superstition, and to worse than Egyptian bondage; yet the lives of their great
worthies, shining with an undiminished lustre, after this long and fearful
eclipse, warmed the bosoms of modern patriots, by whose efforts have been
regained the jewel of inestimable value, so long lost to the world. <o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
And if, in fulfillment of that stern decree which denounces
decay and death on all human things -- a decree before which Babylon and
Jerusalem, Athens and Rome, and all that was illustrious in antiquity, have
crumbled into dust -- if it be irreversible to all, and American be doomed to
travel through the ages of bondage, let us indulge the consolatory hope that
the life of Madison, triumphing over the injuries of time, may become a pillar
of light by which some future patriot may reconduct his countrymen to their
lost inheritance. . .<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
* * *</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Let me invoke the reflection of the admirers of military
renown, by contrasting the acts, and their effects on the condition of the
world, of the greatest captain of ancient or modern times, Napoleon, with our
Madison's.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Of the former it has been
said, "the earthquake voice of victory was the breath of his
nostrils."<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This colossus of power,
of ambition, and of crime, having crushed the liberties of his country, placed
one foot on the pillars of Hercules, and sought to stretch the other to the
arctic pole: his scepter was the besom of desolation: the pedestal of his fame
was composed of the carcasses of three millions of his kind, cemented with the
blood of his victims, and bedewed with the tears of their widows and orphans:
his ministry seemed to be that of a ruthless instrument of vengeance to
chastise and humble a guilty world.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But
mark his end!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>His mad ambition devoted
his country to the horrors of conquest, in part by barbarous hordes who lived
beyond civilization: he himself was precipitated to the dust.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He is deserted by the multitude, the
sycophant of success, whose morality teaches that while misfortune can furnish
no excuse, victory, no matter how obtained, is not required to give an account
of her actions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thus abandoned, he
becomes an outlaw of the civilized world, and dies a wretched captive in one of
Afric's distant isles, loaded with the execrations of the widows and orphans
which his ambition had made, and with the curses of a world; while Madison,
disinterestedly devoting every fibre of his heart, and every attribute of his
mind, to the cause of liberty, and the happiness of his kind -- leading a
nation through the hitherto untrodden paths of political science, like another
Moses conducting his countrymen through the wilderness to the land of the
promise -- laying the foundations of a constitution, which, if his example and
his counsels prevail, will, with the blessing of God, be immortal -- finally
departing in peace, when every hill and every valley of this vast republic
resound with the benedictions on his name, and one universal voice proclaims
him the benefactor of his kind.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Behold
the contrast!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And yet, if Napoleon had
continued successful, the subjects of the extraordinary delusion I am
encountering would have required the sculptor and the poet to exhaust their art
in perpetuating his name, while they would have suffered Madison's to go down
to the grave unwept, unhonored, and unsung.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4888906609369633887.post-2202438671886964072012-09-28T23:55:00.000-07:002013-07-29T10:49:28.763-07:00Hamilton: On the Spirit of Whiggism--and Liberty<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Alexander Hamilton’s Letters
from Phocion (1784) were written to blast the intemperate proceedings against
loyalists in the state of New York that unfolded in the aftermath of the American Revolution. In the course of his first letter, he gives
a profound exposition of “spirit of Whigism” and shows, with examples from
English and Roman history, the folly of policies predicated on the sentiment of
revenge. The letter is also notable for the view taken of the sovereignty of
Congress, under the Articles of Confederation, in all matters of war and peace; for its warning that unjust measures may form dreadful precedents for future usurpations on the rights of the community; for its bold avowal that </i><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">the "safest reliance of every government is on
men’s interests"; and for its reminder "that justice and moderation are the surest supports of every government." </i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
* * *</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
[I]n the present moment, we see the most industrious efforts
made to violate the Constitution of this State, to trample upon the rights of
the subject, and to chicane or infringe the most solemn obligations of treaty;
while dispassionate and upright men almost totally neglect the means of
counteracting these dangerous attempts . . .</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The persons alluded to pretend to appeal to the spirit of
Whigism; while they endeavor to put in motion all the furious and dark passions
of the human mind. The spirit of Whigism is generous, humane, beneficent, and
just. These men inculcate revenge, cruelty, persecution, and perfidy. The
spirit of Whigism cherishes legal liberty, holds the rights of every individual
sacred, condemns or punishes no man without regular trial and conviction of
some crime declared by antecedent laws; reprobates equally the punishment of
the citizen by arbitrary acts of legislation, as by the lawless combinations of
unauthorized individuals; while these men are advocates for expelling a large
number of their fellow-citizens unheard, untried; or, if they cannot effect
this, are for disfranchising them, in the face of the Constitution, without the
judgment of their peers, and contrary to the law of the land. . . .</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Nothing is more common than for a free people, in times of
heat and violence, to gratify momentary passions, by letting into the
government, principles and precedents which afterwards prove fatal to
themselves. Of this kind is the doctrine of disqualification, disfranchisement,
and banishment, by acts of Legislature. The dangerous consequences of this power
are manifest. If the Legislature can disfranchise any number of citizens at
pleasure, by general descriptions, it may soon confine all the votes to a small
number of partisans, and establish an aristocracy or an oligarchy. If it may
banish at discretion all those whom particular circumstances render obnoxious,
without hearing or trial, no man can be safe, nor know when he may be the
innocent victim of a prevailing faction. The name of liberty applied to such a
government would be a mockery of common sense.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The English Whigs, after the Revolution, from an overweening
dread of popery and the Pretender, from triennial, voted the Parliament
septennial. They have been trying, ever since, to undo this false step in vain,
and repenting the effects of their folly in the over-grown power of the new
family. Some imprudent Whigs among us, from resentment to those who have taken
the opposite side (and many of them from worse motives), would corrupt the
principles of our government, and furnish precedents for future usurpations on
the rights of the community.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Let the people beware of such counsellors. However a few
designing men may rise in consequence, and advance their private interests by
such expedients, the people, at large, are sure to be the losers, in the event,
whenever they suffer a departure from the rules of general and equal justice,
or from the true principles of universal liberty. . . .</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
There is a very simple and conclusive point of view in which
this subject may be placed. No citizen can be deprived of any right which the
citizens in general are entitled to, unless forfeited by some offence. It has
been seen that the regular and constitutional mode of ascertaining whether this
forfeiture has been incurred, is by legal process, trial, and conviction. This
ex vi termini supposes prosecution. Now, consistent with the treaty, there can
be no future prosecution for any thing done on account of the war. Can we then
do, by act of Legislature, what the treaty disables us from doing by due course
of law? This would be to imitate the Roman general, who, having promised
Antiochus to restore half his vessels, caused them to be sawed in two before
their delivery; or the PlatÆans, who, having promised the Thebans to restore
their prisoners, had them first put to death, and returned them dead.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Such fraudulent subterfuges are justly considered more
odious than an open and avowed violation of treaty.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
When these posture-masters in logic are driven from this
first ground of the meaning of the treaty, they are forced to that of attacking
the right of Congress to make such a stipulation, and arraigning the impudence
of Great Britain in attempting to make terms for our own subjects. But here, as
everywhere else, they are only successful in betraying their narrowness and
ignorance. Does not the act of Confederation place the exclusive right of
making war and peace in the United States in Congress? Have they not the sole
power of making treaties with foreign nations? Are not these among the first
rights of sovereignty? And does not the delegation of them to the general
Confederacy so far abridge the sovereignty of each particular State? Would not
a different doctrine involve the contradiction of imperium in imperio? What
reasonable limits can be assigned to these prerogatives of the Union, other
than the general safety and the fundamentals of the Constitution? Can it be
said, that a treaty for arresting the future operations of positive acts of
Legislature, and which has indeed no other effect than that of a pardon for
past offences committed against these acts, is an attack upon the fundamentals
of the State Constitutions? Can it be denied that the peace which was made,
taken collectively, was manifestly for the general good—that it was even
favorable to the solid interests of this country, beyond the expectation of the
most sanguine? If this cannot be denied—and none can deny it who know either
the value of the objects gained by the treaty, or the necessity these States
were under at the time of making peace—it follows, that Congress and their
ministers acted wisely in making the treaty which has been made; and it follows
from this, that these States are bound by it, and ought religiously to observe
it. . . .</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But let it be admitted that Congress had no right to enter
into this article; do not equity and prudence strongly urge the several States
to comply with it? We have, in part, enjoyed the benefit of the treaty; in
consequence of which, we, of this State, are now in possession of our capital;
and this implies an obligation in conscience, to perform what is to be
performed on our part. But there is a consideration which will, perhaps, have
more force with men who seem to be superior to conscientious obligations: it is
that the British are still in possession of our frontier posts, which they may
keep in spite of us; and that they may essentially exclude us from the
fisheries, if they are so disposed. Breach of treaty on our part will be a just
ground for breaking it on theirs. The treaty must stand or fall together. The
wilful breach of a single article annuls the whole. Congress are appointed by
the Constitution, to manage our foreign concerns. The nations with whom they
contract are to suppose they understand their own powers, and will not exceed
them. If they do it in any instance, and we think it proper to disavow the act,
it will be no apology with those with whom they contract, that they had
exceeded their authority. One side cannot be bound, unless the obligation is
reciprocal. . . .</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But, say some, to suffer these wealthy disaffected men to
remain among us will be dangerous to our liberties. Enemies to our government,
they will be always endeavoring to undermine it, and bring us back to the
subjection of Great Britain. The safest reliance of every government is on
men’s interests. This is a principle of human nature, on which all political
speculation, to be just, must be founded. Make it the interest of those
citizens who, during the Revolution, were opposed to us, to be friends to the
new government, by affording them not only protection, but a participation in
its privileges, and they will undoubtedly become its friends. The apprehension
of returning under the dominion of Great Britain is chimerical: if there is any
way to bring it about, the measures of those men against whose conduct these
remarks are aimed, lead directly to it. A disorderly, or a violent government
may disgust the best citizens, and make the body of the people tired of their
independence.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The embarrassed and exhausted state of Great Britain, and
the political system of Europe, render it impossible for her ever to reacquire
the dominion of this country. Her former partisans must be convinced of this,
and abandon her cause as desperate. They will never be mad enough to risk their
fortunes a second time, in the hopeless attempt of restoring her authority; nor
will they have any inclination to do it, if they are allowed to be happy under
the government of the society in which they live. To make it practicable, if
they should be so disposed, they must not only get the government of this State
but of the United States into their hands. To suppose this possible is to
suppose that a majority of the numbers, property, and abilities of the United
States has been and is in opposition to the Revolution. Its success is a clear
proof that this has not been the case, and every man of information among us
knows the contrary. The supposition itself would show the absurdity of
expelling a small number from the city, which would constitute so insignificant
a proportion of the whole, as, without diminishing their influence, would only
increase their disposition to do mischief. The policy in this case would be
evident of appealing to their interests rather than to their fears. . . .</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Viewing the subject in every possible light, there is not a
single interest of the community but dictates moderation rather than violence.
That honesty is still the best policy; that justice and moderation are the
surest supports of every government, are maxims which, however they may be
called trite, are at all times true; though too seldom regarded, but rarely
neglected with impunity. Were the people of America with one voice to ask:
“What shall we do to perpetuate our liberties and secure our happiness?” the
answer would be: “Govern well,” and you have nothing to fear either from
internal disaffection or external hostility. Abuse not the power you possess,
and you need never apprehend its diminution or loss. But if you make a wanton
use of it; if you furnish another example that despotism may debase the
government of the many as well as the few, you, like all others that have acted
the same part, will experience that licentiousness is the forerunner to
slavery.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
How wise was that policy of Augustus, who, after conquering
his enemies, when the papers of Brutus were brought to him, which would have
disclosed all his secret associates, immediately ordered them to be burnt. He
would not even know his enemies, that they might cease to hate where they had
nothing to fear.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
How laudable was the example of Elizabeth, who, when she was
transferred from the prison to the throne, fell upon her knees, and thanking
Heaven for the deliverance it had granted her from her bloody persecutors,
dismissed her resentment. “This act of pious gratitude,” says her historian,
“seems to have been the last circumstance in which she remembered any past
injuries and hardships. With a prudence and magnanimity truly laudable, she
buried all offences in oblivion, and received with affability even those who
acted with the greatest virulence against her.” She did more, she retained many
of the opposite party in her councils.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The reigns of these two sovereigns are among the most
illustrious in history. Their moderation gave a stability to their government
which nothing else could have effected. This was the secret of uniting all
parties. . . .</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
* * *</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Source: <a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1381&chapter=64365&layout=html#a_1595552">Works
of Alexander Hamilton (edited by Henry Cabot Lodge), Volume 4, via On-Line
Library of Liberty</a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4888906609369633887.post-81091905374338231432012-08-31T13:09:00.000-07:002012-09-29T23:27:36.526-07:00Jefferson: Essential Principles of American Government<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Thomas Jefferson’s
First Inaugural Address, delivered March 4, 1801, gives a compressed statement of
the essential principles of American government. Like certain Biblical
passages, Jefferson’s address has many sublime expressions that have entered
into the American lexicon</i>. </div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
* * *</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Called upon to undertake the duties of the first Executive
office of our country, I avail myself of the presence of that portion of my
fellow citizens which is here assembled to express my grateful thanks for the
favor with which they have been pleased to look towards me, to declare a
sincere consciousness that the task is above my talents, and that I approach it
with those anxious and awful presentiments which the greatness of the charge,
and the weakness of my powers so justly inspire. A rising nation, spread over a
wide and fruitful land, traversing all the seas with the rich productions of
their industry, engaged in commerce with nations who feel power and forget
right, advancing rapidly to destinies beyond the reach of mortal eye; when I
contemplate these transcendent objects, and see the honour, the happiness, and
the hopes of this beloved country committed to the issue and the auspices of
this day, I shrink from the contemplation & humble myself before the
magnitude of the undertaking. . . .</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
During the contest of opinion through which we have past,
the animation of discusions and of exertions has sometimes worn an aspect which
might impose on strangers unused to think freely, and to speak and to write
what they think; but this being now decided by the voice of the nation,
announced according to the rules of the constitution all will of course arrange
themselves under the will of the law, and unite in common efforts for the
common good.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
All too will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though
the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful,
must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal
laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression. Let us then, fellow
citizens, unite with one heart and one mind, let us restore to social
intercourse that harmony and affection without which liberty, and even life
itself, are but dreary things. And let us reflect that having banished from our
land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered,
we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance, as
despotic, as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions. During
the throes and convulsions of the ancient world, during the agonising spasms of
infuriated man, seeking through blood and slaughter his long lost liberty, it
was not wonderful that the agitation of the billows should reach even this
distant and peaceful shore; that this should be more felt and feared by some
and less by others; and should divide opinions as to measures of safety; but
every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by
different names brethren of the same principle. We are all republicans: we are
all federalists. If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this
Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as
monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated, where
reason is left free to combat it. I know indeed that some honest men fear that
a republican government cannot be strong; that this government is not strong
enough. But would the honest patriot, in the full tide of successful
experiment, abandon a government which has so far kept us free and firm, on the
theoretic and visionary fear, that this government, the world’s best hope, may,
by possibility, want energy to preserve itself? I trust not. I believe this, on
the contrary, the strongest government on earth. I believe it the only one,
where every man, at the call of the law, would fly to the standard of the law,
and would meet invasions of the public order as his own personal
concern.—Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of
himself. Can he then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found
angels, in the form of kings, to govern him? Let history answer this question.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Let us then, with courage and confidence, pursue our own
federal and republican principles; our attachment to union and representative
government. Kindly separated by nature and a wide ocean from the exterminating
havoc of one quarter of the globe; too high minded to endure the degradations
of the others, possessing a chosen country, with room enough for our
descendants to the thousandth and thousandth generation, entertaining a due
sense of our equal right to the use of our own faculties, to the acquisitions of
our own industry, to honor and confidence from our fellow citizens, resulting
not from birth, but from our actions and their sense of them, enlightened by a
benign religion, professed indeed and practised in various forms, yet all of
them inculcating honesty, truth, temperance, gratitude and the love of man,
acknowledging and adoring an overruling providence, which by all its
dispensations proves that it delights in the happiness of man here, and his
greater happiness hereafter; with all these blessings, what more is necessary
to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow
citizens, a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring
one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of
industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread
it has earned. This is the sum of good government; and this is necessary to
close the circle of our felicities.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
About to enter, fellow citizens, on the exercise of duties
which comprehend every thing dear and valuable to you, it is proper you should
understand what I deem the essential principles of our government, and
consequently those which ought to shape its administration. I will compress
them within the narrowest compass they will bear, stating the general
principle, but not all its limitations.—Equal and exact justice to all men, of
whatever state or persuasion, religious or political:—peace, commerce, and
honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none:—the support
of the state governments in all their rights, as the most competent
administrations for our domestic concerns, and the surest bulwarks against
anti-republican tendencies:—the preservation of the General government in its
whole constitutional vigor, as the sheet anchor of our peace at home, and
safety abroad: a jealous care of the right of election by the people, a mild
and safe corrective of abuses which are lopped by the sword of revolution where
peaceable remedies are unprovided:—absolute acquiescence in the decisions of
the majority, the vital principle of republics, from which is no appeal but to
force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism:—a well
disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace, and for the first moments of
war, till regulars may relieve them:—the supremacy of the civil over the
military authority:—economy in the public expence, that labor may be lightly
burthened:—the honest payment of our debts and sacred preservation of the
public faith:—encouragement of agriculture, and of commerce as its
handmaid:—the diffusion of information, and arraignment of all abuses at the
bar of the public reason:—freedom of religion; freedom of the press; and
freedom of person, under the protection of the Habeas Corpus:—and trial by
juries impartially selected. These principles form the bright constellation,
which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and
reformation. The wisdom of our sages, and blood of our heroes have been devoted
to their attainment:—they should be the creed of our political faith; the text
of civic instruction, the touchstone by which to try the services of those we
trust; and should we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us
hasten to retrace our steps, and to regain the road which alone leads to peace,
liberty and safety. . . .</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
* * *</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Source: The <a href="http://the-american-experiment.blogspot.com/search/label/F.%20Federal%20Convention"><span style="color: blue;">Papers
of Thomas Jefferson, Princeton University</span></a>, 33:148-52</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4888906609369633887.post-72507049163954896502012-08-31T12:04:00.001-07:002012-08-31T14:46:19.314-07:00Hamilton: On Morality and Interest in Foreign Policy<em>In this famous passage from his </em>Pacificus <em>essays (No. 4), Alexander Hamilton takes up the question of whether gratitude to France is a sound basis for foreign policy. He rejects that assumption, invoked by many critics of Washington's Proclamation of Neutrality. In the course of his analysis he offers thoughts on the role of the national interest, as circumscribed by the requirements of faith and justice, in the formulation and conduct of foreign policy.</em><br />
<em></em><br />
<em>* * *</em><br />
<br />
. . . [I]t may not be without use to indulge some reflections on this very favourite topic of gratitude to France; since it is at this shrine we are continually invited to sacrifice the true interests of the Country; as if “<i>All for love and the world well lost</i>” were a fundamental maxim in politics.<br />
<br />
Faith and Justice between nations are virtues of a nature sacred and unequivocal. They cannot be too strongly inculcated nor too highly respected. Their obligations are definite and positive their utility unquestionable: they relate to objects, which with probity and sincerity generally admit of being brought within clear and intelligible rules.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335439"></a>But the same cannot be said of gratitude. It is not very often between nations, that it can be pronounced with certainty, that there exists a solid foundation for the sentiment—and how far it can justifiably be permitted to operate is always a question of still greater difficulty.<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335440"></a><br />
The basis of gratitude, is a benefit received or intended, which there was no right to claim, originating in a regard to the interest or advantage of the party, on whom the benefit is or is meant to be conferred. If a service is rendered from views <i>chiefly</i> relative to the immediate interest of the party, who renders it, and is productive of reciprocal advantages, there seems scarcely in such a case to be an adequate basis for a sentiment like that of gratitude. The effect would be disproportioned to the cause; if it ought to beget more than a disposition to render in turn a correspondent good office, founded on <i>mutual</i> interest and <i>reciprocal</i> advantage. But gratitude would require more than this; it would require, to a certain extent, even a sacrifice of the interest of the party obliged to the service or benefit of the party by whom the obligation had been conferred.<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335441"></a><br />
Between individuals, occasion is not unfrequently given to the exercise of gratitude. Instances of conferring benefits, from kind and benevolent dispositions or feelings towards the person benefitted, without any other interest on the part of the person, who confers the benefit, than the pleasure of doing a good action, occur every day among individuals. But among nations they perhaps never occur. It may be affirmed as a general principle, that the predominant motive of good offices from one nation to another is the interest or advantage of the Nation, which performs them.<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335442"></a><br />
Indeed the rule of morality is in this respect not exactly the same between Nations as between individuals. The duty of making its own welfare the guide of its actions is much stronger upon the former than upon the latter; in proportion to the greater magnitude and importance of national compared with individual happiness, to the greater permanency of the effects of national than of individual conduct. Existing Millions and for the most part future generations are concerned in the present measures of a government: While the consequences of the private actions of an individual, for the most part, terminate with himself or are circumscribed within a narrow compass.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335443"></a>Whence it follows, that an individual may on numerous occasions meritoriously indulge the emotions of generosity and benevolence; not only without an eye to, but even at the expence of his own interest. But a Nation can rarely be justified in pursuing a similar course; and when it does so ought to confine itself within much stricter bounds. Good offices, which are indifferent to the Interest of a Nation performing them, or which are compensated by the existence or expectation of some reasonable equivalent or which produce an essential good to the nation, to which they are rendered, without real detriment to the affairs of the nation rendering them, prescribe the limits of national generosity or benevolence.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335444"></a>It is not meant here to advocate a policy absolutely selfish or interested in nations; but to shew that a policy regulated by their own interest, as far as justice and good faith permit, is, and ought to be their prevailing policy: and that either to ascribe to them a different principle of action, or to deduce from the supposition of it arguments for a self-denying and self-sacrificing gratitude on the part of a Nation, which may have received from another good offices, is to misconceive or mistake what usually are and ought to be the springs of National Conduct.<br />
<br />
* * *<br />
<br />
Source: <em>The full texts and expert commentary on these essays may be found on-line at
Liberty Fund's Online Library of Liberty, reproducing</em> <a href="http://www.blogger.com/goog_1739220934">The
Pacificus-Helvidius Debates of 1793-1794: Toward the Completion of the American
Founding</a><em><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1910&layout=html#chapter_112543">,</a> edited with and Introduction by Morton J. Frisch (Indianapolis:
Liberty Fund, 2007).</em> Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4888906609369633887.post-54229541383287306572012-08-31T11:36:00.001-07:002012-08-31T11:48:33.165-07:00Hamilton: On Promoting Liberty Abroad<em>In the second </em>Pacificus<em> essay, Alexander Hamilton offered a sharp condemnation of France's conduct in the war that engulfed the Europe after the French Revolution. Hamilton stressed that France's offensive conduct relieved the United States of whatever obligations it might have to guarantee France's West India islands by virtue of the 1778 US treaty with France. But the essay went on to offer observations, not irrelevant today, regarding the circumstances in which it was legitimate to promote liberty abroad</em>. <br />
<br />
* * *<br />
<br />
France committed an aggression upon Holland in declaring free the navigation of the Scheldt and acting upon that declaration; contrary to Treaties in which she had explicitly acknowleged and even guaranteed the exclusive right of Holland to the navigation of that River and contrary to the doctrines of the best Writers and established usages of Nations, in such cases.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335386"></a>She gave a general and just cause of alarm to Nations, by that Decree of the 19th. of November 1792 whereby the Convention, in the name of the French Nation, declare that they will grant <i>fraternity</i> and <i>assistance</i> to every People who <i>wish</i> to recover their liberty and charge the Executive Power to send the necessary orders to <i>the Generals</i> to give assistance to such people, and to <i>defend those citizens who may have been or who may be vexed for the cause of liberty;</i> which decree was ordered to be printed <i>in all languages.</i><br />
<em></em><br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335387"></a>When a Nation has actually come to a resolution to throw off a yoke, under which it may have groaned, and to assert its liberties—it is justifiable and meritorious in another nation to afford assistance to the one which has been oppressed & is <i>in the act</i> of liberating itself; but it is not warrantable for any Nation <i>beforehand</i> to hold out a general invitation to insurrection and revolution, by promising to assist <i>every people</i> who may <i>wish</i> to recover their liberty and to defend <i>those citizens,</i> of every country, <i>who may have been or who may be vexed for the cause of liberty;</i> still less to commit to the <span class="csc">Generals</span> of its armies the discretionary power of judging when the Citizens of a foreign Country have been vexed for the cause of Liberty by their own government.<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335388"></a><br />
The latter part of the decree amounted exactly to what France herself has most complained of—an interference by one nation in the internal Government of another.<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335389"></a><br />
Vatel justly observes, as a consequence of the Liberty & Independence of Nations—“That it does not belong to any foreign Power to take cognizance of the administration of the <i>sovereign</i> of another country, to set himself up as a judge of his Conduct or to oblige him to alter it.”<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335390"></a><br />
Such a conduct as that indicated by this Decree has a natural tendency to disturb the tranquillity of nations, to excite fermentation and revolt every where; and therefore justified neutral powers, who were in a situation to be affected by it in taking measures to repress the spirit by which it had been dictated. . . .<br />
<br />
Whatever partial[it]y may be entertained for the general object of the French Revolution, it is impossible for any well informed or soberminded man not to condemn the proceedings which have been stated; as repugnant to the general rights of Nations, to the true principles of liberty, to the freedom of opinion of mankind; & not to acknowlege as a consequence of this, that the justice of the war on the part of France, with regard to some of the powers with which she is engaged, is from those causes questionable enough to free the UStates from all embarrassment on that score; if it be at all incumbent upon them to go into the inquiry.<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335403"></a><br />
The policy of a defensive alliance is so essentially distinct from that of an offensive one, that it is every way important not to confound their effects. The first kind has in view the prudent object of mutual defence, when either of the allies is involuntarily forced into a war by the attack by some third power. The latter kind subjects the peace of each ally to the will of the other, and obliges each to partake in the wars of policy & interest, as well as in those of safety and defence, of the other. To preserve their boundaries distinct it is necessary that each kind should be governed by plain and obvious rules. This would not be the case, if instead of taking the simple fact of who begun the war as a guide, it was necessary to travel into metaphysical niceties about the justice or injustice of the cause which led to it. Since also the not furnishing a stipulated succour, when it is due, is itself a cause of War, it is very requisite, that there should be some palpable criterion for ascertaining <i>when it is due.</i> This criterion as before observed, in a defensive alliance is the <i>commencement</i> or not of the war by our ally, as a mere matter of fact.<br />
<br />
* * *<br />
<br />
Source: <em>The full texts and expert commentary on these essays may be found on-line at
Liberty Fund's Online Library of Liberty, reproducing</em> <a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1910&layout=html#chapter_112543">The Pacificus-Helvidius Debates of 1793-1794: Toward the Completion of the American Founding</a><em>, edited with and Introduction by Morton J. Frisch (Indianapolis:
Liberty Fund, 2007).</em> Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4888906609369633887.post-2698652087440427242012-08-26T23:32:00.000-07:002012-08-26T23:32:05.733-07:00The Executive in Foreign Policy: Hamilton versus Madison<em>In 1793, after the outbreak of war between Great Britain and France, the Washington administration issued a Proclamation of Neutrality. This was in seeming contradiction to Article 11 of the 1778 Treaty with France and it drew strong opposition from the emerging party of Jeffersonian Republicans. Jefferson was Secretary of State in the Washington administration and had initially opposed a proclamation. He doubted the executive had the constitutional authority to issue one, and he deemed it inexpedient to make known American intentions without first receiving explicit recognition from Great Britain that it would concede, as the price of it, "the broadest privileges" to neutral nations. He was overruled by Washington, and a proclamation was issued that warned American citizens "carefully to avoid all acts and proceedings whatsoever which may in any manner tend to contravene . . . a conduct friendly and impartial toward the belligerent powers." Madison, when he heard of it, thought it an abomination: "It wounds the national honor, by seeming to disregard the stipulated duties to France. It wounds the popular feelings by a seeming indifference to the cause of liberty. And it seems to violate the forms & spirit of the Constitution, by making the executive magistrate the organ of the disposition, the duty, and the interest of the nation in relation to war and peace, subjects appropriated to other departments of the Government." </em><br />
<em></em><br />
<em>The </em>Pacificus<em> essays by Alexander Hamilton and the reply issued by Madison under the pen-name of </em>Helvidius<em> addressed these issues. Madison's essays were concentrated on the constitutional point, and it is that question that will be the focus of this extract. Hamilton took that up in his first </em>Pacificus<em> paper. Elsewhere we will look at different facets of controversy over foreign policy that developed between Hamilton and the Federalists on the one side, and Jefferson and the Republicans on the other. </em><br />
<em></em><br />
<em>When an edition of </em>The Federalist<em> appeared in 1802, Hamilton asked the editor to include his Pacificus essays in the compendium, attesting to the importance he placed on these essays. Here is an extract from Pacificus No. 1, taking up the question whether the executive branch had the authority to issue one. In order to judge the question, Hamilton remarked, it was necessary to examine the nature and design of such a proclamation:</em> <br />
<br />
* * *<br />
<br />
The true nature & design of such an act is—to <i>make known</i> to the powers at War and to the Citizens of the Country, whose Government does the Act that such country is in the condition of a Nation at Peace with the belligerent parties, and under no obligations of Treaty, to become an <i>associate in the war</i> with either of them; that this being its situation its intention is to observe a conduct conformable with it and to perform towards each the duties of neutrality; and as a consequence of this state of things, to give warning to all within its jurisdiction to abstain from acts that shall contravene those duties, under the penalties which the laws of the land (of which the law of Nations is a part) annexes to acts of contravention.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335316"></a>This, and no more, is conceived to be the true import of a Proclamation of Neutrality.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335317"></a>It does not imply, that the Nation which makes the declaration will forbear to perform to any of the warring Powers any stipulations in Treaties which can be performed without rendering it an <i>associate</i> or <i>party</i> in the War. . . .[However,] it is conceded that an execution of the clause of Guarantee contained in the 11th article of our Treaty of Alliance with France would be contrary to the sense and spirit of the Proclamation; because it would engage us with our whole force as an <i>associate</i> or <i>auxiliary</i> in the War; it would be much more than the case of a definite limited succour, previously ascertained.<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335320"></a><br />
It follows that the Proclamation is virtually a manifestation of the sense of the Government that the UStates are, <i>under the circumstances of the case, not bound</i> to execute the clause of Guarantee.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335321"></a>If this be a just view of the true force and import of the Proclamation, it will remain to see whether the President in issuing it acted within his proper sphere, or stepped beyond the bounds of his constitutional authority and duty.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335322"></a>It will not be disputed that the management of the affairs of this country with foreign nations is confided to the Government of the UStates.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335323"></a>It can as little be disputed, that a Proclamation of Neutrality, where a Nation is at liberty to keep out of a War in which other Nations are engaged and means so to do, is a <i>usual</i> and a <i>proper</i> measure. <i>Its main object and effect are to prevent the Nation being immediately responsible for acts done by its citizens, without the privity or connivance of the Government, in contravention of the principles of neutrality.</i><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335324"></a>An object this of the greatest importance to a Country whose true interest lies in the preservation of peace.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335325"></a>The inquiry then is—what department of the Government of the UStates is the proper one to make a declaration of Neutrality in the cases in which the engagements of the Nation permit and its interests require such a declaration.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335326"></a>A correct and well informed mind will discern at once that it can belong neither to the Legislative nor Judicial Department and of course must belong to the Executive.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335327"></a>The Legislative Department is not the <i>organ</i> of intercourse between the UStates and foreign Nations. It is charged neither with <i>making</i> nor <i>interpreting</i> Treaties. It is therefore not naturally that Organ of the Government which is to pronounce the existing condition of the Nation, with regard to foreign Powers, or to admonish the Citizens of their obligations and duties as founded upon that condition of things. Still less is it charged with enforcing the execution and observance of these obligations and those duties.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335328"></a>It is equally obvious that the act in question is foreign to the Judiciary Department of the Government. The province of that Department is to decide litigations in particular cases. It is indeed charged with the interpretation of treaties; but it exercises this function only in the litigated cases; that is where contending parties bring before it a specific controversy. It has no concern with pronouncing upon the external political relations of Treaties between Government and Government. This position is too plain to need being insisted upon.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335329"></a>It must then of necessity belong to the Executive Department to exercise the function in Question—when a proper case for the exercise of it occurs.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335330"></a>It appears to be connected with that department in various capacities, as the <i>organ</i> of intercourse between the Nation and foreign Nations—as the interpreter of the National Treaties in those cases in which the Judiciary is not competent, that is in the cases between Government and Government—as that Power, which is charged with the Execution of the Laws, of which Treaties form a part—as that Power which is charged with the command and application of the Public Force.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335331"></a>This view of the subject is so natural and obvious—so analogous to general theory and practice—that no doubt can be entertained of its justness, unless such doubt can be deduced from particular provisions of the Constitution of the UStates.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335332"></a>Let us see then if cause for such doubt is to be found in that constitution.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335333"></a>The second Article of the Constitution of the UStates, section 1st, establishes this general Proposition, That “The <span class="csc">Executive Power</span> shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335334"></a><br />
The same article in a succeeding Section proceeds to designate particular cases of Executive Power. It declares among other things that the President shall be Commander in Cheif of the army and navy of the UStates and of the Militia of the several states when called into the actual service of the UStates, that he shall have power by and with the advice of the senate to make treaties; that it shall be his duty to receive ambassadors and other public Ministers and to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335335"></a><br />
It would not consist with the rules of sound construction to consider this enumeration of particular authorities as derogating from the more comprehensive grant contained in the general clause, further than as it may be coupled with express restrictions or qualifications; as in regard to the cooperation of the Senate in the appointment of Officers and the making of treaties; which are qualifications of the general executive powers of appointing officers and making treaties: Because the difficulty of a complete and perfect specification of all the cases of Executive authority would naturally dictate the use of general terms—and would render it improbable that a specification of certain particulars was designd as a substitute for those terms, when antecedently used. The different mode of expression employed in the constitution in regard to the two powers the Legislative and the Executive serves to confirm this inference. In the article which grants the legislative powers of the Government the expressions are—“<i>All Legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the UStates</i>”; in that which grants the Executive Power the expressions are, as already quoted “The <span class="csc">Executive Po</span><span class="sc">wer</span> shall be vested in a President of the UStates of America.”<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335336"></a>The enumeration ought rather therefore to be considered as intended by way of greater caution, to specify and regulate the principal articles implied in the definition of Executive Power; leaving the rest to flow from the general grant of that power, interpreted in conformity to other parts of the constitution and to the principles of free government.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335337"></a>The general doctrine then of our constitution is, that the <span class="csc">Executive Power</span> of the Nation is vested in the President; subject only to the <i>exceptions</i> and <i>qu</i><i>a</i><i>lifications</i> which are expressed in the instrument.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335338"></a>Two of these have been already noticed—the participation of the Senate in the appointment of Officers and the making of Treaties. A third remains to be mentioned the right of the Legislature “to declare war and grant letters of marque and reprisal.”<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335339"></a>With these exceptions the <span class="csc">Executive Power</span> of the Union is completely lodged in the President. This mode of construing the Constitution has indeed been recognized by Congress in formal acts, upon full consideration and debate. The power of removal from office is an important instance.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335340"></a>And since upon general principles for reasons already given, the issuing of a proclamation of neutrality is merely an Executive Act; since also the general Executive Power of the Union is vested in the President, the conclusion is, that the step, which has been taken by him, is liable to no just exception on the score of authority.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335341"></a>It may be observed that this Inference would be just if the power of declaring war had not been vested in the Legislature, but that this power naturally includes the right of judging whether the Nation is under obligations to make war or not.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335342"></a>The answer to this is, that however true it may be, that the right of the Legislature to declare war includes the right of judging whether the Nation be under obligations to make War or not—it will not follow that the Executive is in any case excluded from a similar right of Judgment, in the execution of its own functions.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335343"></a>If the Legislature have a right to make war on the one hand—it is on the other the duty of the Executive to preserve Peace till war is declared; and in fulfilling that duty, it must necessarily possess a right of judging what is the nature of the obligations which the treaties of the Country impose on the Government; and when in pursuance of this right it has concluded that there is nothing in them inconsistent with a <i>state</i> of neutrality, it becomes both its province and its duty to enforce the laws incident to that state of the Nation. The Executive is charged with the execution of all laws, the laws of Nations as well as the Municipal law, which recognises and adopts those laws. It is consequently bound, by faithfully executing the laws of neutrality, when that is the state of the Nation, to avoid giving a cause of war to foreign Powers.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335344"></a>This is the direct and proper end of the proclamation of neutrality. It declares to the UStates their situation with regard to the Powers at war and makes known to the Community that the laws incident to that situation will be enforced. In doing this, it conforms to an established usage of Nations, the operation of which as before remarked is to obviate a responsibility on the part of the whole Society, for secret and unknown violations of the rights of any of the warring parties by its citizens.<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335345"></a><br />
Those who object to the proclamation will readily admit that it is the right and duty of the Executive to judge of, or to interpret, those articles of our treaties which give to France particular privileges, in order to the enforcement of those privileges: But the necessary consequence of this is, that the Executive must judge what are the proper bounds of those privileges—what rights are given to other nations by our treaties with them—what rights the law of Nature and Nations gives and our treaties permit, in respect to those Nations with whom we have no treaties; in fine what are the reciprocal rights and obligations of the United States & of all & each of the powers at War.<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335346"></a><br />
The right of the Executive to receive ambassadors and other public Ministers may serve to illustrate the relative duties of the Executive and Legislative Departments. This right includes that of judging, in the case of a Revolution of Government in a foreign Country, whether the new rulers are competent organs of the National Will and ought to be recognised or not: And where a treaty antecedently exists between the UStates and such nation that right involves the power of giving operation or not to such treaty. For until the new Government is <i>acknowleged,</i> the treaties between the nations, as far at least as regards <i>public</i> rights, are of course suspended.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335347"></a>This power of determining virtually in the case supposed upon the operation of national Treaties as a consequence, of the power to receive ambassadors and other public Ministers, is an important instance of the right of the Executive to decide the obligations of the Nation with regard to foreign Nations. To apply it to the case of France, if there had been a Treaty of alliance <i>offensive</i> and defensive between the UStates and that Country, the unqualified acknowlegement of the new Government would have put the UStates in a condition to become an associate in the War in which France was engaged—and would have laid the Legislature under an obligation, if required, and there was otherwise no valid excuse, of exercising its power of declaring war.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335348"></a>This serves as an example of the right of the Executive, in certain cases, to determine the condition of the Nation, though it may consequentially affect the proper or improper exercise of the Power of the Legislature to declare war. The Executive indeed cannot control the exercise of that power—further than by the exercise of its general right of objecting to all acts of the Legislature; liable to being overruled by two thirds of both houses of Congress. The Legislature is free to perform its own duties according to its own sense of them—though the Executive in the exercise of its constitutional powers, may establish an antecedent state of things which ought to weigh in the legislative decisions. From the division of the Executive Power there results, in referrence to it, a <i>concurrent</i> authority, in the distributed cases.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335349"></a>Hence in the case stated, though treaties can only be made by the President and Senate, their activity may be continued or suspended by the President alone.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335350"></a>No objection has been made to the Presidents having acknowleged the Republic of France, by the Reception of its Minister, without having consulted the Senate; though that body is connected with him in the making of Treaties, and though the consequence of his act of reception is to give operation to the Treaties heretofore made with that Country: But he is censured for having declared the UStates to be in a state of peace & neutrality, with regard to the Powers at War; because the right of <i>changing</i> that state & <i>declaring war</i> belongs to the Legislature.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335351"></a>It deserves to be remarked, that as the participation of the senate in the making of Treaties and the power of the Legislature to declare war are exceptions out of the general “Executive Power” vested in the President, they are to be construed strictly—and ought to be extended no further than is essential to their execution.<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335352"></a><br />
While therefore the Legislature can alone declare war, can alone actually transfer the nation from a state of Peace to a state of War—it belongs to the “Executive Power,” to do whatever else the laws of Nations cooperating with the Treaties of the Country enjoin, in the intercourse of the UStates with foreign Powers.<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335353"></a><br />
In this distribution of powers the wisdom of our constitution is manifested. It is the province and duty of the Executive to preserve to the Nation the blessings of peace. The Legislature alone can interrupt those blessings, by placing the Nation in a state of War.<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335354"></a><br />
But though it has been thought adviseable to vindicate the authority of the Executive on this broad and comprehensive ground—it was not absolutely necessary to do so. That clause of the constitution which makes it his duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” might alone have been relied upon, and this simple process of argument pursued.<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335355"></a><br />
The President is the constitutional <span class="csc">Executor</span> of the laws. Our Treaties and the laws of Nations form a part of the law of the land. He who is to execute the laws must first judge for himself of their meaning. In order to the observance of that conduct, which the laws of nations combined with our treaties prescribed to this country, in reference to the present War in Europe, it was necessary for the President to judge for himself whether there was any thing in our treaties incompatible with an adherence to neutrality. Having judged that there was not, he had a right, and if in his opinion the interests of the Nation required it, it was his duty, as Executor of the laws, to proclaim the neutrality of the Nation, to exhort all persons to observe it, and to warn them of the penalties which would attend its non observance.<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335356"></a><br />
The Proclamation has been represented as enacting some new law. This is a view of it entirely erroneous. It only proclaims a <i>fact</i> with regard to the <i>existing state</i> of the Nation, informs the citizens of what the laws previously established require of them in that state, & warns them that these laws will be put in execution against the Infractors of them.<br />
<br />
* * *<br />
<br />
<em>After the appearance of the Pacificus essays, Jefferson wrote to Madison urging him to take Hamilton to task: "For god’s sake, my dear Sir, take up your pen, select the most striking heresies, and cut him to pieces in the face of the public. There is nobody else who can & will enter the lists with him." Madison followed with his </em>Helvidius<em> essays, of which the first number (there were five in all) follows:</em><br />
<br />
* * *<br />
<br />
Several pieces with the signature of <span class="csc">Pacificus</span> were lately published, which have been read with singular pleasure and applause, by the foreigners and degenerate citizens among us, who hate our republican government, and the French revolution; whilst the publication seems to have been too little regarded, or too much despised by the steady friends to both.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335536"></a>Had the doctrines inculcated by the writer, with the natural consequences from them, been nakedly presented to the public, this treatment might have been proper. Their true character would then have struck every eye, and been rejected by the feelings of every heart. But they offer themselves to the reader in the dress of an elaborate dissertation; they are mingled with a few truths that may serve them as a passport to credulity; and they are introduced with professions of anxiety for the preservation of peace, for the welfare of the government, and for the respect due to the present head of the executive, that may prove a snare to patriotism.<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335537"></a><br />
In these disguises they have appeared to claim the attention I propose to bestow on them; with a view to shew, from the publication itself, that under colour of vindicating an important public act, of a chief magistrate, who enjoys the confidence and love of his country, principles are advanced which strike at the vitals of its constitution, as well as at its honor and true interest.<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335538"></a><br />
As it is not improbable that attempts may be made to apply insinuations which are seldom spared when particular purposes are to be answered, to the author of the ensuing observations, it may not be improper to premise, that he is a friend to the constitution, that he wishes for the preservation of peace, and that the present chief magistrate has not a fellow-citizen, who is penetrated with deeper respect for his merits, or feels a purer solicitude for his glory.<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335539"></a><br />
This declaration is made with no view of courting a more favorable ear to what may be said than it deserves. The sole purpose of it is, to obviate imputations which might weaken the impressions of truth; and which are the more likely to be resorted to, in proportion as solid and fair arguments may be wanting.<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335540"></a><br />
The substance of the first piece, sifted from its inconsistencies and its vague expressions, may be thrown into the following propositions:<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335541"></a><br />
That the powers of declaring war and making treaties are, in their nature, executive powers:<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335542"></a><br />
That being particularly vested by the constitution in other departments, they are to be considered as exceptions out of the general grant to the executive department:<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335543"></a><br />
That being, as exceptions, to be construed strictly, the powers not strictly within them, remain with the executive:<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335544"></a><br />
That the executive consequently, as the organ of intercourse with foreign nations, and the interpreter and executor of treaties, and the law of nations, is authorised, to expound all articles of treaties, those involving questions of war and peace, as well as others; to judge of the obligations of the United States to make war or not, under any casus federis or eventual operation of the contract, relating to war; and, to pronounce the state of things resulting from the obligations of the United States, as understood by the executive:<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335545"></a><br />
That in particular the executive had authority to judge whether in the case of the mutual guaranty between the United States and France, the former were bound by it to engage in the war:<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335546"></a><br />
That the executive has, in pursuance of that authority, decided that the United States are not bound: And,<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335547"></a><br />
That its proclamation of the 22d of April last, is to be taken as the effect and expression of that decision.<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335548"></a><br />
The basis of the reasoning is, we perceive, the extraordinary doctrine, that the powers of making war and treaties, are in their nature executive; and therefore comprehended in the general grant of executive power, where not specially and strictly excepted out of the grant.<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335549"></a><br />
Let us examine this doctrine; and that we may avoid the possibility of mistating the writer, it shall be laid down in his own words: a precaution the more necessary, as scarce any thing else could outweigh the improbability, that so extravagant a tenet should be hazarded, at so early a day, in the face of the public.<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335550"></a><br />
His words are—“Two of these (exceptions and qualifications to the executive powers) have been already noticed—the participation of the Senate in the <i>appointment of officers,</i> and the <i>making of treaties.</i> A <i>third</i> remains to be mentioned—the right of the legislature to <i>declare war, and grant letters of marque and reprisal.</i>”<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335551"></a><br />
Again—“It deserves to be remarked, that as the participation of the Senate in the <i>making treaties,</i> and the power of the legislature to <i>declare war,</i> are <i>exceptions</i> out of the general <i>executive power,</i> vested in the President, they are to be construed <i>strictly,</i> and ought to be extended no farther than is essential to their execution.”<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335552"></a><br />
If there be any countenance to these positions, it must be found either 1st, in the writers, of authority, on public law; or 2d, in the quality and operation of the powers to make war and treaties; or 3d, in the constitution of the United States.<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335553"></a><br />
It would be of little use to enter far into the first source of information, not only because our own reason and our own constitution, are the best guides; but because a just analysis and discrimination of the powers of government, according to their executive, legislative and judiciary qualities are not to be expected in the works of the most received jurists, who wrote before a critical attention was paid to those objects, and with their eyes too much on monarchical governments, where all powers are confounded in the sovereignty of the prince. It will be found however, I believe, that all of them, particularly Wolfius, Burlamaqui and Vattel, speak of the powers to declare war, to conclude peace, and to form alliances, as among the highest acts of the sovereignty; of which the legislative power must at least be an integral and preeminent part.<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335554"></a><br />
Writers, such as Locke and Montesquieu, who have discussed more particularly the principles of liberty and the structure of government, lie under the same disadvantage, of having written before these subjects were illuminated by the events and discussions which distinguish a very recent period. Both of them too are evidently warped by a regard to the particular government of England, to which one of them owed allegiance; and the other professed an admiration bordering on idolatry. <br />
<br />
Montesquieu, however, has rather distinguished himself by enforcing the reasons and the importance of avoiding a confusion of the several powers of government, than by enumerating and defining the powers which belong to each particular class. And Locke, notwithstanding the early date of his work on civil government, and the example of his own government before his eyes, admits that the particular powers in question, which, after some of the writers on public law he calls <i>federative,</i> are really <i>distinct</i> from the <i>executive,</i> though almost always united with it, and <i>hardly to be separated into distinct hands.</i> Had he not lived under a monarchy, in which these powers were united; or had he written by the lamp which truth now presents to lawgivers, the last observation would probably never have dropt from his pen. But let us quit a field of research which is more likely to perplex than to decide, and bring the question to other tests of which it will be more easy to judge.<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335555"></a><br />
2. If we consult for a moment, the nature and operation of the two powers to declare war and make treaties, it will be impossible not to see that they can never fall within a proper definition of executive powers. The natural province of the executive magistrate is to execute laws, as that of the legislature is to make laws. All his acts therefore, properly executive, must presuppose the existence of the laws to be executed. A treaty is not an execution of laws: it does not pre-suppose the existence of laws. It is, on the contrary, to have itself the force of a <i>law,</i> and to be carried into <i>execution,</i> like all <i>other laws,</i> by the <i>executive magistrate.</i> To say then that the power of making treaties which are confessedly laws, belongs naturally to the department which is to execute laws, is to say, that the executive department naturally includes a legislative power. In theory, this is an absurdity—in practice a tyranny.<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335556"></a><br />
The power to declare war is subject to similar reasoning. A declaration that there shall be war, is not an execution of laws: it does not suppose preexisting laws to be executed: it is not in any respect, an act merely executive. It is, on the contrary, one of the most deliberative acts that can be performed; and when performed, has the effect of <i>repealing</i> all the <i>laws</i> operating in a state of peace, so far as they are inconsistent with a state of war: and of <i>enacting</i> as <i>a rule for the executive,</i> a <i>new code</i> adapted to the relation between the society and its foreign enemy. In like manner a conclusion of peace <i>annuls</i> all the <i>laws</i> peculiar to a state of war, and <i>revives</i> the general <i>laws</i> incident to a state of peace.<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335557"></a><br />
These remarks will be strengthened by adding that treaties, particularly treaties of peace, have sometimes the effect of changing not only the external laws of the society, but operate also on the internal code, which is purely municipal, and to which the legislative authority of the country is of itself competent and compleat.<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335558"></a><br />
From this view of the subject it must be evident, that although the executive may be a convenient organ of preliminary communications with foreign governments, on the subjects of treaty or war; and the proper agent for carrying into execution the final determinations of the competent authority; yet it can have no pretensions from the nature of the powers in question compared with the nature of the executive trust, to that essential agency which gives validity to such determinations.<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335559"></a><br />
It must be further evident that, if these powers be not in their nature purely legislative, they partake so much more of that, than of any other quality, that under a constitution leaving them to result to their most natural department, the legislature would be without a rival in its claim.<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335560"></a><br />
Another important inference to be noted is, that the powers of making war and treaty being substantially of a legislative, not an executive nature, the rule of interpreting exceptions strictly, must narrow instead of enlarging executive pretensions on those subjects.<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335561"></a><br />
3. It remains to be enquired whether there be any thing in the constitution itself which shews that the powers of making war and peace are considered as of an executive nature, and as comprehended within a general grant of executive power.<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335562"></a><br />
It will not be pretended that this appears from any <i>direct</i> position to be found in the instrument.<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335563"></a>If it were <i>deducible</i> from any particular expressions it may be presumed that the publication would have saved us the trouble of the research.<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335564"></a><br />
Does the doctrine then result from the actual distribution of powers among the several branches of the government? Or from any fair analogy between the powers of war and treaty and the enumerated powers vested in the executive alone?<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335565"></a><br />
Let us examine.<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335566"></a><br />
In the general distribution of powers, we find that of declaring war expressly vested in the Congress, where every other legislative power is declared to be vested, and without any other qualification than what is common to every other legislative act. The constitutional idea of this power would seem then clearly to be, that it is of a legislative and not an executive nature.<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335567"></a><br />
This conclusion becomes irresistible, when it is recollected, that the constitution cannot be supposed to have placed either any power legislative in its nature, entirely among executive powers, or any power executive in its nature, entirely among legislative powers, without charging the constitution, with that kind of intermixture and consolidation of different powers, which would violate a fundamental principle in the organization of free governments. If it were not unnecessary to enlarge on this topic here, it could be shewn, that the constitution was originally vindicated, and has been constantly expounded, with a disavowal of any such intermixture.<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335568"></a><br />
The power of treaties is vested jointly in the President and in the Senate, which is a branch of the legislature. From this arrangement merely, there can be no inference that would necessarily exclude the power from the executive class: since the senate is joined with the President in another power, that of appointing to offices, which as far as relate to executive offices at least, is considered as of an executive nature. Yet on the other hand, there are sufficient indications that the power of treaties is regarded by the constitution as materially different from mere executive power, and as having more affinity to the legislative than to the executive character.<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335569"></a><br />
One circumstance indicating this, is the constitutional regulation under which the senate give their consent in the case of treaties. In all other cases the consent of the body is expressed by a majority of voices. In this particular case, a concurrence of two thirds at least is made necessary, as a substitute or compensation for the other branch of the legislature, which on certain occasions, could not be conveniently a party to the transaction.<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335570"></a><br />
But the conclusive circumstance is, that treaties when formed according to the constitutional mode, are confessedly to have the force and operation of <i>laws,</i> and are to be a rule for the courts in controversies between man and man, as much as any <i>other laws.</i> They are even emphatically declared by the constitution to be “the supreme law of the land.”<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335571"></a><br />
So far the argument from the constitution is precisely in opposition to the doctrine. As little will be gained in its favour from a comparison of the two powers, with those particularly vested in the President alone.<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335572"></a><br />
As there are but few it will be most satisfactory to review them one by one.<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335573"></a><br />
“The President shall be commander in chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia when called into the actual service of the United States.”<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335574"></a><br />
There can be no relation worth examining between this power and the general power of making treaties. And instead of being analogous to the power of declaring war, it affords a striking illustration of the incompatibility of the two powers in the same hands. Those who are to <i>conduct a war</i> cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether <i>a war ought</i> to be <i>commenced, continued,</i> or <i>concluded.</i> They are barred from the latter functions by a great principle in free government, analogous to that which separates the sword from the purse, or the power of executing from the power of enacting laws.<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335575"></a><br />
“He may require the opinion in writing of the principal officers in each of the executive departments upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices; and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States, except in case of impeachment.” These powers can have nothing to do with the subject.<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335576"></a><br />
“The President shall have power to fill up vacancies that may happen during the recess of the senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of the next session.” The same remark is applicable to this power, as also to that of “receiving ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls.” The particular use attempted to be made of this last power will be considered in another place.<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335577"></a><br />
“He shall take care that the laws shall be faithfully executed and shall commission all officers of the United States.” To see the laws faithfully executed constitutes the essence of the executive authority. But what relation has it to the power of making treaties and war, that is, of determining what the <i>laws shall be</i> with regard to other nations? No other certainly than what subsists between the powers of executing and enacting laws; no other consequently, than what forbids a coalition of the powers in the same department.<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335578"></a><br />
I pass over the few other specified functions assigned to the President, such as that of convening of the legislature, &c. &c. which cannot be drawn into the present question.<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335579"></a><br />
It may be proper however to take notice of the power of removal from office, which appears to have been adjudged to the President by the laws establishing the executive departments; and which the writer has endeavoured to press into his service. To justify any favourable inference from this case, it must be shewn, that the powers of war and treaties are of a kindred nature to the power of removal, or at least are equally within a grant of executive power. Nothing of this sort has been attempted, nor probably will be attempted. Nothing can in truth be clearer, than that no analogy, or shade of analogy, can be traced between a power in the supreme officer responsible for the faithful execution of the laws, to displace a subaltern officer employed in the execution of the laws; and a power to make treaties, and to declare war, such as these have been found to be in their nature, their operation, and their consequences.<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335580"></a><br />
Thus it appears that by whatever standard we try this doctrine, it must be condemned as no less vicious in theory than it would be dangerous in practice. It is countenanced neither by the writers on law; nor by the nature of the powers themselves; nor by any general arrangements or particular expressions, or plausible analogies, to be found in the constitution.<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335581"></a><br />
Whence then can the writer have borrowed it?<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335582"></a><br />
There is but one answer to this question.<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335583"></a><br />
The power of making treaties and the power of declaring war, are <i>royal prerogatives</i> in the <i>British government,</i> and are accordingly treated as Executive prerogatives by <i>British commentators.</i><br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335584"></a><br />
We shall be the more confirmed in the necessity of this solution of the problem, by looking back to the aera of the constitution, and satisfying ourselves that the writer could not have been misled by the doctrines maintained by our own commentators on our own government. That I may not ramble beyond prescribed limits, I shall content myself with an extract from a work which entered into a systematic explanation and defence of the constitution, and to which there has frequently been ascribed some influence in conciliating the public assent to the government in the form proposed. <br />
<br />
Three circumstances conspire in giving weight to this cotemporary exposition. It was made at a time <br />
when no application to <i>persons</i> or <i>measures</i> could bias: The opinion given was not transiently mentioned, but formally and critically elucidated: It related to a point in the constitution which must consequently have been viewed as of importance in the public mind. The passage relates to the power of making treaties; that of declaring war, being arranged with such obvious propriety among the legislative powers, as to be passed over without particular discussion.<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335585"></a><br />
“Tho’ several writers on the subject of government place that power (<i>of making treaties</i> ) in the class of <i>Executive authorities,</i> yet this is <i>evidently</i> an <i>arbitrary disposition.</i> For if we attend <i>carefully,</i> to its operation, it will be found to partake <i>more</i> of the <i>legislative</i> than of the <i>executive</i> character, though it does not seem strictly to fall within the definition of either of them. The essence of the legislative authority, is to enact laws; or in other words, to prescribe rules for the regulation of the society. While the execution of the laws and the employment of the common strength, either for this purpose, or for the common defence, seem to comprize <i>all</i> the functions of the <i>Executive magistrate.</i> The power of making treaties is <i>plainly</i> neither the one nor the other. It relates neither to the execution of the subsisting laws, nor to the enaction of new ones, and still less to an exertion of the common strength. Its objects are contracts with foreign nations, which have the <i>force of law,</i> but derive it from the obligations of good faith. They are not rules prescribed by the sovereign to the subject, but agreements between sovereign and sovereign. The power in question seems therefore to form a distinct department, and to belong properly neither to the legislative nor to the executive. The qualities elsewhere detailed as indispensable in the management of foreign <i>negociations,</i> point out the executive as the most fit agent in those transactions: whilst the vast importance of the trust, and the operation of treaties <i>as Laws,</i> plead strongly for the participation of the whole or a part of the <i>legislative body</i> in the office of making them.” Federalist [No. 75].<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="a_2335586"></a><br />
It will not fail to be remarked on this commentary, that whatever doubts may be started as to the correctness of its reasoning against the legislative nature of the power to make treaties: it is <i>clear, consistent</i> and <i>confident,</i> in deciding that the power is <i>plainly</i> and <i>evidently</i> not an <i>executive power.</i><br />
<em></em><br />
<em>* * *</em><br />
<em></em><br />
<em>The full texts and expert commentary on these essays may be found on-line at Liberty Fund's Online Library of Liberty, reproducing</em> The Pacificus-Helvidius Debates of 1793-1794: Toward the Completion of the American Founding<em>, edited with and Introduction by Morton J. Frisch (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2007).</em>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4888906609369633887.post-57424048244050487422011-08-28T20:41:00.000-07:002013-09-09T17:04:58.376-07:00Paine: Imagining IndependenceCommon Sense<i>, first published in early 1776, was amazingly popular and spread through the colonies like wildfire. Here Paine mounts a succession of arguments against reconciliation with Great Britain, making a bold appeal for an immediate declaration of independence. In the course of that plea, Paine advances a theory of democratic peace and monarchical war, two decades before Kant's more famous argument in </i>Perpetual Peace<i>. "Our plan," says Paine, "is peace for ever."</i><br />
<br />
* * *<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth. 'Tis not the affair of a City, a County, a Province, or a Kingdom; but of a Continent — of at least one-eighth part of the habitable Globe. 'Tis not the concern of a day, a year, or an age; posterity are virtually involved in the contest, and will be more or less affected even to the end of time, by the proceedings now. Now is the seed-time of Continental union, faith and honour. The least fracture now will be like a name engraved with the point of a pin on the tender rind of a young oak; the wound would enlarge with the tree, and posterity read in it full grown characters. . . .</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I have heard it asserted by some, that as America hath flourished under her former connection with Great Britain that the same connection is necessary towards her future happiness, and will always have the same effect. Nothing can be more fallacious than this kind of argument. We may as well assert that because a child has thrived upon milk that it is never to have meat, or that the first twenty years of our lives is to become a precedent for the next twenty. But even this is admitting more than is true, for I answer roundly, that America would have flourished as much, and probably much more, had no European power had any thing to do with her. The commerce, by which she hath enriched herself, are the necessaries of life, and will always have a market while eating is the custom of Europe.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But she has protected us, say some. That she has engrossed us is true, and defended the continent at our expense as well as her own is admitted, and she would have defended Turkey from the same motive, viz. the sake of trade and dominion.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Alas, we have been long led away by ancient prejudices, and made large sacrifices to superstition. We have boasted the protection of Great Britain, without considering, that her motive was <i>interest</i> not <i>attachment</i>; that she did not protect us from <i>our enemies</i> on <i>our account</i>, but from <i>her enemies</i> on <i>her own account</i>, from those who had no quarrel with us on any <i>other account</i>, and who will always be our enemies on the <i>same account</i>. Let Britain wave her pretensions to the continent, or the continent throw off the dependence, and we should be at peace with France and Spain were they at war with Britain. The miseries of Hanover last war ought to warn us against connections.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It has lately been asserted in parliament, that the colonies have no relation to each other but through the parent country, i. e. that Pennsylvania and the Jerseys, and so on for the rest, are sister colonies by the way of England; this is certainly a very round-about way of proving relationship, but it is the nearest and only true way of proving enemyship, if I may so call it. France and Spain never were. nor perhaps ever will be our enemies as <i>Americans</i>, but as our being the <i>subjects of Great Britain</i>.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But Britain is the parent country, say some. Then the more shame upon her conduct. Even brutes do not devour their young, nor savages make war upon their families; wherefore the assertion, if true, turns to her reproach; but it happens not to be true, or only partly so and the phrase <i>parent</i> or <i>mother country</i> hath been jesuitically adopted by the king and his parasites, with a low papistical design of gaining an unfair bias on the credulous weakness of our minds. Europe, and not England, is the parent country of America. This new world hath been the asylum for the persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty from <i>every part</i> of Europe. Hither have they fled, not from the tender embraces of the mother, but from the cruelty of the monster; and it is so far true of England, that the same tyranny which drove the first emigrants from home, pursues their descendants still. . . .</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Much hath been said of the united strength of Britain and the colonies, that in conjunction they might bid defiance to the world. But this is mere presumption; the fate of war is uncertain, neither do the expressions mean any thing; for this continent would never suffer itself to be drained of inhabitants, to support the British arms in either Asia, Africa, or Europe.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Besides what have we to do with setting the world at defiance? Our plan is commerce, and that, well attended to, will secure us the peace and friendship of all Europe; because, it is the interest of all Europe to have America a <i>free port</i>. Her trade will always be a protection, and her barrenness of gold and silver secure her from invaders.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I challenge the warmest advocate for reconciliation, to shew, a single advantage that this continent can reap, by being connected with Great Britain. I repeat the challenge, not a single advantage is derived. Our corn will fetch its price in any market in Europe, and our imported goods must be paid for, buy them where we will.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But the injuries and disadvantages we sustain by that connection, are without number; and our duty to mankind at large, as well as to ourselves, instruct us to renounce the alliance: Because, any submission to, or dependence on Great-Britain, tends directly to involve this continent in European wars and quarrels; and sets us at variance with nations, who would otherwise seek our friendship, and against whom, we have neither anger nor complaint. As Europe is our market for trade, we ought to form no partial connection with any part of it. It is the true interest of America to steer clear of European contentions, which she never can do, while by her dependence on Britain, she is made the make-weight in the scale of British politics.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Europe is too thickly planted with kingdoms to be long at peace, and whenever a war breaks out between England and any foreign power, the trade of America goes to ruin, <i>because of her connection with Britain</i>. The next war may not turn out like the last, and should it not, the advocates for reconciliation now, will be wishing for separation then, because, neutrality in that case, would be a safer convoy than a man of war. Every thing that is right or natural pleads for separation. The blood of the slain, the weeping voice of nature cries, <span style="font-size: x-small;">'TIS TIME TO PART</span>. Even the distance at which the Almighty hath placed England and America, is a strong and natural proof, that the authority of the one, over the other, was never the design of Heaven. The time likewise at which the continent was discovered, adds weight to the argument, and the manner in which it was peopled increases the force of it. The reformation was preceded by the discovery of America, as if the Almighty graciously meant to open a sanctuary to the Persecuted in future years, when home should afford neither friendship nor safety.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The authority of Great Britain over this continent, is a form of government, which sooner or later must have an end: And a serious mind can draw no true pleasure by looking forward under the painful and positive conviction, that what he calls "the present constitution" is merely temporary. As parents, we can have no joy, knowing that <i>this government</i> is not sufficiently lasting to ensure any thing which we may bequeath to posterity: And by a plain method of argument, as we are running the next generation into debt, we ought to do the work of it, otherwise we use them meanly and pitifully. In order to discover the line of our duty rightly, we should take our children in our hand, and fix our station a few years farther into life; that eminence will present a prospect, which a few present fears and prejudices conceal from our sight. . . .</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It is repugnant to reason, to the universal order of things, to all examples from former ages, to suppose, that this continent can longer remain subject to any external power. The most sanguine in Britain does not think so. The utmost stretch of human wisdom cannot, at this time, compass a plan short of separation, which can promise the continent even a year's security. Reconciliation is <i>now</i> a fallacious dream. Nature hath deserted the connection, and Art cannot supply her place. For, as Milton wisely expresses, "never can true reconcilement grow, where wounds of deadly hate have pierced so deep." . . .</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Small islands not capable of protecting themselves, are the proper objects for kingdoms to take under their care; but there is something very absurd, in supposing a continent to be perpetually governed by an island. In no instance hath nature made the satellite larger than its primary planet, and as England and America, with respect to each other, reverses the common order of nature, it is evident they belong to different systems; England to Europe, America to itself. . . .</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But the most powerful of all arguments, is, that nothing but independance, i.e. a continental form of government, can keep the peace of the continent and preserve it inviolate from civil wars. I dread the event of a reconciliation with Britain now, as it is more than probable, that it will be followed by a revolt somewhere or other, the consequences of which may be far more fatal than all the malice of Britain. . . .</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The colonies have manifested such a spirit of good order and obedience to continental government, as is sufficient to make every reasonable person easy and happy on that head. No man can assign the least pretence for his fears, on any other grounds, than such as are truly childish and ridiculous, viz. that one colony will be striving for superiority over another.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Where there are no distinctions there can be no superiority, perfect equality affords no temptation. The republics of Europe are all (and we may say always) in peace. Holland and Switzerland are without wars, foreign or domestic: Monarchical governments, it is true, are never long at rest; the crown itself is a temptation to enterprising ruffians at <i>home</i>; and that degree of pride and insolence ever attendant on regal authority, swells into a rupture with foreign powers, in instances, where a republican government, by being formed on more natural principles, would negotiate the mistake. . . .</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
A government of our own is our natural right: And when a man seriously reacts on the precariousness of human affairs, he will become convinced, that it is infinitely wiser and safer, to form a constitution of our own in a cool deliberate manner, while we have it in our power, than to trust such an interesting event to time and chance. . . . Should the government of America return again into the hands of Britain, the tottering situation of things will be a temptation for some desperate adventurer to try his fortune; and in such a case, what relief can Britain give? Ere she could hear the news, the fatal business might be done; and ourselves suffering like the wretched Britons under the oppression of the Conqueror. Ye that oppose independence now, ye know not what ye do; ye are opening a door to eternal tyranny, by keeping vacant the seat of government. There are thousands, and tens of thousands, who would think it glorious to expel from the continent that barbarous and hellish power, which hath stirred up the Indians and Negroes to destroy us; the cruelty hath a double guilt, it is dealing brutally by us, and treacherously by them.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
To talk of friendship with those in whom our reason forbids us to have faith, and our affections wounded through a thousand pores instruct us to detest, is madness and folly. Every day wears out the little remains of kindred between us and them, and can there be any reason to hope, that as the relationship expires, the affection will increase, or that we shall agree better, when we have ten times more and greater concerns to quarrel over than ever? . . .</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Debts we have none; and whatever we may contract on this account will serve as a glorious memento of our virtue. Can we but leave posterity with a settled form of government, an independent constitution of its own, the purchase at any price will be cheap. But to expend millions for the sake of getting a few vile acts repealed, and routing the present ministry only, is unworthy the charge, and is using posterity with the utmost cruelty; because it is leaving them the great work to do, and a debt upon their backs, from which they derive no advantage. Such a thought is unworthy of a man of honor, and is the true characteristic of a narrow heart and a peddling politician. . . .</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The infant state of the Colonies, as it is called, so far from being against, is an argument in favour of independance. We are sufficiently numerous, and were we more so, we might be less united. It is a matter worthy of observation, that the more a country is peopled, the smaller their armies are. In military numbers, the ancients far exceeded the modems: and the reason is evident. for trade being the consequence of population, men become too much absorbed thereby to attend to anything else. Commerce diminishes the spirit, both of patriotism and military defence. And history sufficiently informs us, that the bravest achievements were always accomplished in the non-age of a nation. With the increase of commerce, England hath lost its spirit. The city of London, notwithstanding its numbers, submits to continued insults with the patience of a coward. The more men have to lose, the less willing are they to venture. The rich are in general slaves to fear, and submit to courtly power with the trembling duplicity of a Spaniel.<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Youth is the seed-time of good habits as well in nations as in individuals. It might be difficult, if not impossible, to form the Continent into one government half a century hence. The vast variety of interests, occasioned by an increase of trade and population, would create confusion. Colony would be against colony. Each being able would scorn each other's assistance; and while the proud and foolish gloried in their little distinctions the wise would lament that the union had not been formed before. Wherefore the <i>present time</i> is the <i>true time</i> for establishing it. The intimacy which is contracted in infancy, and the friendship which is formed in misfortune, are of all others the most lasting and unalterable. Our present union is marked with both these characters; we are young, and we have been distressed; but our concord hath withstood our troubles, and fixes a memorable era for posterity to glory in.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The present state of America is truly alarming to every man who is capable of reflexion. Without law, without government, without any other mode of power than what is founded on, and granted by courtesy. Held together by an unexampled concurrence of sentiment, which, is nevertheless subject to change, and which, every secret enemy is endeavouring to dissolve. Our present condition, is, Legislation without law; wisdom without a plan; a constitution without a name; and, what is strangely astonishing, perfect Independance contending for dependance. The instance is without a precedent; the case never existed before; and who can tell what may be the event? The property of no man is secure in the present unbraced system of things. The mind of the multitude is left at random, and seeing no fixed object before them, they pursue such as fancy or opinion starts. Nothing is criminal; there is no such thing as treason; wherefore, every one thinks himself at liberty to act as he pleases. The Tories dared not have assembled offensively, had they known that their lives, by that act, were forfeited to the laws of the state. A line of distinction should be drawn, between, English soldiers taken in battle, and inhabitants of America taken in arms. The first are prisoners, but the latter traitors. The one forfeits his liberty, the other his head. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Notwithstanding our wisdom, there is a visible feebleness in some of our proceedings which gives encouragement to dissensions. The Continental Belt is too loosely buckled. And if something is not done in time, it will be too late to do any thing, and we shall fall into a state, in which, neither reconciliation nor independance will be practicable. The king and his worthless adherents are got at their old game of dividing the Continent, and there are not wanting among us, Printers, who will be busy in spreading specious falsehoods. . . .</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In short, Independance is the only <span style="font-size: x-small;">BOND</span> that can tye and keep us together. We shall then see our object, and our ears will be legally shut against the schemes of an intriguing, as well, as a cruel enemy. We shall then too, be on a proper footing, to treat with Britain; for there is reason to conclude, that the pride of that court, will be less hurt by treating with the American states for terms of peace, than with those, whom she denominates, "rebellious subjects," for terms of accommodation. It is our delaying it that encourages her to hope for conquest, and our backwardness tends only to prolong the war. As we have, without any good effect therefrom, withheld our trade to obtain a redress of our grievances, let us now try the alternative, by <i>independantly</i> redressing them ourselves, and then offering to open the trade. The mercantile and reasonable part in England, will be still with us; because, peace <i>with</i> trade, is preferable to war <i>without</i> it. And if this offer be not accepted, other courts may be applied to. . . .<br />
<br />
<i>Our plan is peace for ever</i>. We are tired of contention with Britain, and can see no real end to it but in a final separation. We act consistently, because for the sake of introducing an endless and uninterrupted peace, do we bear the evils and burthens of the present day. . . .</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4888906609369633887.post-72752422512628065542011-08-28T20:02:00.000-07:002011-08-28T23:32:19.544-07:00Paine: On MonarchyFrom Thomas Paine, in <i>Common Sense</i>, a few choice expressions on monarchy:<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform, and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows, that whatever Form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others. . . .</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">I draw my idea of the form of government from a principle in nature, which no art can overturn, viz. that the more simple any thing is, the less liable it is to be disordered; and the easier repaired when disordered; and with this maxim in view, I offer a few remarks on the so much boasted constitution of England. That it was noble for the dark and slavish times in which it was erected, is granted. When the world was overrun with tyranny the least remove therefrom was a glorious rescue. But that it is imperfect, subject to convulsions, and incapable of producing what it seems to promise, is easily demonstrated. . . .</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">There is something exceedingly ridiculous in the composition of monarchy; it first excludes a man from the means of information, yet empowers him to act in cases where the highest judgment is required. The state of a king shuts him from the world, yet the business of a king requires him to know it thoroughly; wherefore the different parts, by unnaturally opposing and destroying each other, prove the whole character to be absurd and useless. . .</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">The most plausible plea, which hath ever been offered in favour of hereditary succession, is, that it preserves a nation from civil wars; and were this true, it would be weighty; whereas, it is the most barefaced falsity ever imposed upon mankind. The whole history of England disowns the fact. Thirty kings and two minors have reigned in that distracted kingdom since the conquest, in which time there have been (including the Revolution) no less than eight civil wars and nineteen rebellions. Wherefore instead of making for peace, it makes against it, and destroys the very foundation it seems to stand on.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">The nearer any government approaches to a republic the less business there is for a king. It is somewhat difficult to find a proper name for the government of England. Sir William Meredith calls it a republic; but in its present state it is unworthy of the name, because the corrupt influence of the crown, by having all the places in its disposal, hath so effectually swallowed up the power, and eaten out the virtue of the house of commons (the republican part in the constitution) that the government of England is nearly as monarchical as that of France or Spain. Men fall out with names without understanding them. For it is the republican and not the monarchical part of the constitution of England which Englishmen glory in, viz. the liberty of choosing an house of commons from out of their own body - and it is easy to see that when republican virtue fails, slavery ensues. Why is the constitution of England sickly, but because monarchy hath poisoned the republic, the crown hath engrossed the commons?<br />
<br />
In England a king hath little more to do than to make war and give away places; which in plain terms, is to impoverish the nation and set it together by the ears. A pretty business indeed for a man to be allowed eight hundred thousand sterling a year for, and worshipped into the bargain! Of more worth is one honest man to society and in the sight of God, than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4888906609369633887.post-9902030185856187342011-08-24T18:18:00.000-07:002011-09-24T17:04:46.054-07:00Madison: If Men Were Angels<i>Madison's great exposition in </i>Federalist 51<i> is abundant of rich ideas and much quoted sayings--it is certainly one of the great documents of American constitutionalism. The argument in </i>Federalist 10<i> regarding the virtues of an extended republic is given a powerful restatement at the end of this essay; in the beginning we get an analysis of how each department of the government (executive, legislative, and judicial) should operate to check the improper pretensions of the others. "Ambition," says Madison, "must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man, must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place." </i><i> </i><br />
<br />
* * *<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">To what expedient then shall we finally resort, for maintaining in practice the necessary partition of power among the several departments, as laid down in the constitution? The only answer that can he given is, that as all these exterior provisions are found to be inadequate, the defect must be supplied, by so contriving the interior structure of the government, as that its several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places. Without presuming to undertake a full development of this important idea, I will hazard a few general observations, which may perhaps place it in a clearer light, and enable us to form a more correct judgment of the principles and structure of the government planned by the convention.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">In order to lay a due foundation for that separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government, which, to a certain extent, is admitted on all hands to be essential to the preservation of liberty, it is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted, that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others. Were this principle rigorously adhered to, it would require that all the appointments for the supreme executive, legislative, and judiciary magistracies, should be drawn from the same fountain of authority, the people, through channels, having no communication whatever with one another. Perhaps such a plan of constructing the several departments, would be less difficult in practice, than it may in contemplation appear. Some difficulties, however, and some additional expense, would attend the execution of it. Some deviations, therefore, from the principle must be admitted. In the constitution of the judiciary department in particular, it might be inexpedient to insist rigorously on the principle; first, because peculiar qualifications being essential in the members, the primary consideration ought to be to select that mode of choice, which best secures these qualifications; secondly, because the permanent tenure by which the appointments are held in that department, must soon destroy all sense of dependence on the authority conferring them.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">It is equally evident, that the members of each department should be as little dependent as possible on those of the others, for the emoluments annexed to their offices. Were the executive magistrate, or the judges, not independent of the legislature in this particular, their independence in every other, would be merely nominal. But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department, the necessary constitutional means, and personal motives, to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defence must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man, must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government, which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You mast first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">This policy of supplying by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives, might be traced through the whole system of human affairs, private as well as public. We see it particularly displayed in all the subordinate distributions of power; where the constant aim is, to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner, as that each may be a cheek on the other; that the private interest of every individual, may be a centinel over the public rights. These inventions of prudence cannot be less requisite in the distribution of the supreme powers of the state.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defence. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is, to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them by different modes of election, and different principles of action, as little connected with each other, as the nature of their common functions, and their common dependence on the society, will admit. It may even be necessary to guard against dangerous encroachments, by still further precautions. As the weight of tho legislative authority requires that it should be thus divided, the weakness of the executive may require, on the other hand, that it should be fortified. An absolute negative on the legislature, appears, at first view, to be the natural defence with which the executive magistrate should be armed. But perhaps it would be neither altogether safe, nor alone sufficient. On ordinary occasions, it might not be exerted with the requisite firmness; and on extraordinary occasions, it might be perfidiously abused. May not this defect of an absolute negative be supplied by some qualified connexion between this weaker department, and the weaker branch of the stronger department, by which the latter may be led to support the constitutional rights of the former, without being too much detached from the rights of its own department?</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">If the principles on which these observations are founded be just, as I persuade myself they are, and they be applied as a criterion to the several state constitutions, and to the federal constitution, it will be found, that if the latter does not perfectly correspond with them, the former are infinitely less able to bear such a test.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">There are moreover two considerations particularly applicable to the federal system of America, which place it in a very interesting point of view.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">First</i>. In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people, is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against, by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people, is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other; at the same time that each will be controled by itself.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Second</i>. It is of great importance in a republic, not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers; but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. There are but two methods of providing against this evil: The one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority, that is, of the society itself; the other by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens, as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable. The first method prevails in all governments possessing an hereditary or self-appointed authority. This, at best, is but a precarious security; because a power independent of the society, may as well espouse the unjust views of the major, as the rightful interests of the minor party, and may possibly be turned against both parties. The second method, will be exemplified in the federal republic of the United States. Whilst all authority in it will be derived from, and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">In a free government, the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other, in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of interests and sects; and this may be presumed to depend on the extent of country and number of people comprehended under the same government. This view of the subject, must particularly recommend a proper federal system, to all the sincere and considerate friends of republican government: since it shows, that in exact proportion, as the territory of the union may be formed into more circumscribed confederacies, or states, oppressive combinations of a majority will be facilitated, the best security under the republican form, for the rights of every class of citizens, will be diminished; and consequently, the stability and independence of some member of the government, the only other security must be proportionably increased. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been, and ever will be pursued, until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society, under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign, as in a state of nature where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger: And as in the latter state even the stronger individuals are prompted by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government, which may protect the weak, as well as themselves: so in the former state, will the more powerful factions be gradually induced by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful. It can be little doubted, that if the state of Rhode-Island was separated from the confederacy, and left to itself, the insecurity of rights under the popular form of government within such narrow limits, would be displayed by such reiterated oppressions of factious majorities, that some power altogether independent of the people, would soon be called for by the voice of the very factions whose misrule had proved the necessity of it.<br />
<br />
In the extended republic of the United States, and among the great variety of interests, parties, and sects, which it embraces, a coalition of a majority of the whole society could seldom take place upon any other principles, than those of justice and the general good: Whilst there being thus less danger to a minor from the 'will of the major party, there must be less pretext also, to provide for the security of the former, by introducing into the government a will not dependent on the latter: or, in other words, a will independent of the society itself. It is no less certain than it is important, notwithstanding the contrary opinions which have been entertained, that the larger the society, provided it lie within a practicable sphere, the more duly capable it will be of self-government. And happily for the republican cause, the practicable sphere may be carried to a very great extent, by a judicious modification and mixture of the federal principle.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4888906609369633887.post-12600571179414088392011-08-24T00:03:00.000-07:002013-11-10T11:07:03.653-08:00Witherspoon: On the Necessity of Confederation<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">John Witherspoon gave, in the following address, one of the great defenses of the American confederation. Witherspoon left his native Scotland to become President of the College of New Jersey (later Princeton) in 1768 and was a member of the New Jersey delegation to the Continental Congress, in which he served from 1776 to 1782. When one delegate insisted that the colonies were not yet ripe for independence, Witherspoon replied, “In my judgment, sir, we are not only ripe, but rotting.” </i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">I learned from a Fourth of July celebration many years ago (as I recall in 2004) that one Reese Witherspooon is the great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, granddaughter (more or less) of John Witherspoon. My children were duly impressed when I told them that Witherspoon was one of the heroes of my recently published book and that I was going to write Reese to tell her that. Typically, I never got around to it. </i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">* * *</span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
The absolute necessity of union, to the vigor and success of those measures on which we are already entered, is felt and confessed by every one of us without exception; so far indeed that those who have expressed their fears or suspicions of the existing confederacy proving abortive, have yet agreed in saying that there must and shall be a confederacy for the purposes of and till the finishing of this war. So far is well; and so far it is pleasing to hear them express their sentiments. But I entreat gentlemen calmly to consider how far the giving up all hopes of a lasting confederacy among these States, for their future security and improvement, will have an effect upon the stability and efficacy of even the temporary confederacy, which all acknowledge to be necessary?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I am fully persuaded, that when it ceases to be generally known, that the delegates of the provinces consider a lasting union as impracticable, it will greatly derange the minds of the people, and weaken their hands in defence of their country, which they have now undertaken with so much alacrity and spirit. I confess it would to me greatly diminish the glory and importance of the struggle, whether considered as for the rights of mankind in general, or for the prosperity and happiness of this continent in future times.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It would quite depreciate the object of hope, as well as place it at a greater distance. For what would it signify to risk our possessions, and shed our blood to set ourselves free from the encroachments and oppression of Great Britain, with a certainty, as soon as peace was settled with them, of a more lasting war, a more unnatural, more bloody, and much more hopeless war among the colonies themselves? Some of us consider ourselves as acting for posterity at present, having little expectation of living to see all things fully settled, and the good consequences of liberty taking effect. But how much more uncertain the hope of seeing the internal contests of the colonies settled upon a lasting and equitable footing.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
One of the greatest dangers I have always considered the colonies as exposed to at present, is treachery among themselves, augmented by bribery and corruption from our enemies. But what force would be added to the arguments of seducers, if they could say with truth, that it was of no consequence whether we succeeded against Great Britain or not, for we must in the end be subjected, the greatest part of us, to the power of one or more, of the strongest or largest of the American States? And here I would apply the argument which we have so often used against Great Britain—that in all history we see that the slaves of freemen, and the subject States of republics, have been, of all others, the most grievously oppressed. I do not think the records of time can produce an instance of slaves treated with so much barbarity, as the Helotes by the Lacedaemonians, who were the most illustrious champions for liberty in all Greece; or of provinces more plundered and spoiled than the States conquered by the Romans, for one hundred years before Caesar's dictatorship. The reason is plain, there are many great men in free States. There were many consular gentlemen in that great republic, who all considered themselves as greater than kings, and must have kingly fortunes, which they had no other way of acquiring but by governments of provinces, which lasted generally but one year, and seldom more than two. In what I have already said, or may say, or any cases I may state, I hope every gentleman will do me the justice to believe that I have not the most distant view to particular persons or societies, and mean only to reason from the usual course of things, and the prejudices inseparable from men as such. And can we help saying that there will be a much greater degree, not only of the corruption of particular persons, but the defection of particular provinces from the present confederacy, if they consider our success itself as only a prelude to contests of a more dreadful nature, and indeed much more properly a civil war, than that which now often obtains the name? Must not small colonies, in particular, be in danger of saying, we must secure ourselves? If the colonies are independent States, separate and disunited, after this war, we may be sure of coming off by the worse. We are in no condition to contend with several of them. Our trade in general, and our trade with them, must be upon such terms as they shall be pleased to prescribe. What will be the consequence of this? Will they not be ready to prefer putting themselves under the protection of Great Britain, France, or Holland, rather than submit to the tyranny of their neighbors, who were lately their equals? Nor would it be at all impossible that they should enter into such rash engagements, as would prove their own destruction, from a mixture of apprehended necessity and real resentment.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Perhaps it may be thought that breaking off this confederacy, and leaving it unfinished after we have entered upon it, will be only postponing the duty to some future period? Alas! nothing can exceed the absurdity of that supposition. Does not all history cry out, that a common danger is the great and only effectual means of settling difficulties, and composing differences? Have we not experienced its efficacy in producing such a degree of union through these colonies, as nobody would have prophesied, and hardly any would have expected?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If, therefore, at present, when the danger is yet imminent, when it is so far from being over, that it is but coming to its height, we shall find it impossible to agree upon the terms of this confederacy, what madness is it to suppose that there ever will be a time, or that circumstances will so change as to make it even probable that it will be done at an after season? Will not the very same difficulties that are in our way, be in the way of those who shall come after us? Is it possible that they should be ignorant of them, or inattentive to them? Will they not have the same jealousies of each other, the same attachment to local prejudices, and particular interest? So certain is this, that I look upon it, as on the repentance of a sinner. Every day's delay, though it adds to the necessity, yet augments the difficulty and takes from the inclination.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
There is one thing that has been thrown out, by which some seem to persuade themselves of, and others to be more indifferent, about the success of a confederacy, that from the nature of men, it is to be expected that a time must come when it will be dissolved and broken in pieces. I am none of those, who either deny or conceal the depravity of human nature, till it is purified by the light of truth, and renewed by the Spirit of the living God. Yet, I apprehend there is no force in that reasoning at all. Shall we establish nothing good because we know it cannot be eternal? Shall we live without government, because every constitution has its old age and its period? Because we know that we shall die, shall we take no pains to preserve or lengthen our life? Far from it, sir: it only requires the more watchful attention to settle government upon the best principles and in the wisest manner, that it may last as long as the nature of things will admit.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But I beg leave to say something more, though with some risk that it will be thought visionary and romantic. I do expect, Mr. President, a progress, as in every other human art, so in the order and perfection of human society, greater than we have yet seen, and why should we be wanting to ourselves in urging it forward? It is certain, I think, that human science and religion have kept company together and greatly assisted each other's progress in the world. I do not say that intellectual and moral qualities are in the same proportion in particular persons, but they have a great and friendly influence upon one another, in societies and larger bodies.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
There have been great improvements, not only in human knowledge, but in human nature, the progress of which can be easily traced in history. Every body is able to look back to the time, in Europe, when the liberal sentiments that now prevail upon the rights of conscience, would have been looked upon as absurd. It is but little above two hundred years since that enlarged system, called the balance of power, took place, and I maintain that it is a greater step, from the former disunited and hostile situation of kingdoms and States, to their present condition, than it would be from their present condition to a state of more perfect and lasting union. It is not impossible, that in future times all the States in one quarter of the globe may see it proper, by some plan of union, to perpetuate security and peace, and sure I am, a well planned confederacy among the States of America may hand down the blessings of peace and public order to many generations. The union of the seven provinces of the low countries has never yet been broken, and they are of very different degrees of strength and wealth. Neither have the cantons of Switzerland ever broken among themselves, though there are some of them Protestants, and some of them Papists, by public establishment. Not only so, but these confederacies are seldom engaged in a war with other nations. Wars are generally between monarchs, or single States that are large. A confederation, of itself, keeps war at a distance from the bodies of which it is composed.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
For all these reasons, sir, I humbly apprehend that every argument from honor, interest, safety, and necessity, conspire in pressing us to a confederacy, and if it be seriously attempted, I hope, by the blessing of God upon our endeavors, it will be happily accomplished.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4888906609369633887.post-80045769062075968322011-08-23T22:58:00.000-07:002014-02-14T22:33:28.847-08:00Madison: What is a Republic?<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<em>In </em>Federalist 39<em>, Madison takes up the vexed question of how to define a republic. John Adams once wrote that if past usage were to be the guide, anything and everything would be the appropriate answer, so various were the definitions of previous authors. Madison’s answer was not dissimilar--writers had used the term with "extreme inaccuracy"--but a principled view had to insist that a republican government "derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behaviour." </em><br />
<em><br /></em></div>
<em> </em><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
* * *</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
What, then, are the distinctive characters of the republican form? Were an answer to this question to be sought, not by recurring to principles, but in the application of the term by political writers, to the constitutions of different states, no satisfactory one would ever be found. Holland, in which no particle of the supreme authority is derived from the people, has passed almost universally under the denomination of a republic. The same title has been bestowed on Venice, where absolute power over the great body of the people is exercised, in the most absolute manner, by a small body of hereditary nobles. Poland, which is a mixture of aristocracy and of monarchy in their worst forms, has been dignified with the same appellation. The government of England, which has one republican branch only, combined with a hereditary aristocracy and monarchy, has, with equal impropriety, been frequently placed on the list of republics. These examples, which are nearly as dissimilar to each other as to a genuine republic, show the extreme inaccuracy with which the term has been used in political disquisitions.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
If we resort, for a criterion, to the different principles on which different forms of government are established, we may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behaviour. It is essential to such a government, that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favoured class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans, and claim for their government the honourable title of republic. It is sufficient for such a government, that the persons administering it be appointed, either directly or indirectly, by the people; and that they hold their appointments by either of the tenures just specified; otherwise every government in the United States, as well as every other popular government that has been or can be well organized or well executed, would be degraded from the republican character. According to the constitution of every state in the union, some or other of the officers of government are appointed indirectly only by the people. According to most of them, the chief magistrate himself is so appointed. And according to one, this mode of appointment is extended to one of the coordinate branches of the legislature. According to all the constitutions also, the tenure of the highest offices is extended to a definite period, and in many instances, both within the legislative and executive departments, to a period of years. According to the provisions of most of the constitutions, again, as well as according to the most respectable and received opinions on the subject, the members of the judiciary department are to retain their offices by the firm tenure of good behaviour.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
On comparing the constitution planned by the convention, with the standard here fixed, we perceive at once, that it is, in the most rigid sense, conformable to it. The house of representatives, like that of one branch at least of all the state legislatures, is elected immediately by the great body of the people. The senate, like the present congress, and the senate of Maryland, derives its appointment indirectly from the people. The president is indirectly derived from the choice of the people, according to the example in most of the states. Even the judges, with all other officers of the union, will, as in the several states, be the choice, though a remote choice, of the people themselves. The duration of the appointments is equally conformable to the republican standard, and to the model of the state constitutions. The house of representatives is periodically elective, as in all the states; and for the period of two years, as in the state of South Carolina. The senate is elective, for the period of six years; which is but one year more than the period of the senate of Maryland; and but two more than that of the senates of New York and Virginia. The president is to continue in office for the period of four years; as in New York and Delaware, the chief magistrate is elected for three years, and in South Carolina for two years. In the other states the election is annual. In several of the states, however, no explicit provision is made for the impeachment of the chief magistrate. And in Delaware and Virginia, he is not impeachable till out of office. The president of the United States is impeachable at any time during his continuance in office. The tenure by which the judges are to hold their places, is, as it unquestionably ought to be, that of good behaviour. The tenure of the ministerial offices generally, will be a subject of legal regulation, conformably to the reason of the case, and the example of the state constitutions.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Could any further proof be required of the republican complexion of this system, the most decisive one might be found in its absolute prohibition of titles of nobility, both under the federal and the state governments; and in its express guarantee of the republican form to each of the latter.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4888906609369633887.post-8961155191090547612011-08-21T18:36:00.000-07:002014-05-01T18:24:36.950-07:00Madison: State Governments to Hold Balance of Power Under New Constitution<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:DoNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w:DontVertAlignCellWithSp/> <w:DontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/> <w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/> <w:Word11KerningPairs/> <w:CachedColBalance/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="267"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
</style> <![endif]--> <br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Replying to <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>the Anti-Federalists, who argued that the federal government created under the constitution would “derogate from the importance of the governments of the individual states,”Madison heatedly asked: “Was then the American revolution effected, was the American confederacy formed, was the precious blood of thousands spilt, and the hard-earned substance of millions lavished, not that the people of America should enjoy peace, liberty, and safety; but that the governments of the individual states, that particular municipal establishments, might enjoy a certain extent of power, and be arrayed with certain dignities and attributes of sovereignty?” Despite this suspicion of the states, Madison was not convinced that the tendency toward the aggregation of power in the states would be arrested by the new constitution. In a letter to Jefferson written just after the conclusion of the federal convention, he gave expression to private doubts about who would prevail in America’s new “feudal system of republics.” So the reservations expressed below were not just “talking points.” </i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">In the early numbers of </i>The Federalist (18 to 20)<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">, Madison had examined the history of ancient and modern confederacies and showed their tendency toward dissolution. Here, in</i> Federalist 45<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">, he summarizes his earlier conclusions and takes up a new question: whether the “operation of the federal government will by degrees prove fatal to the state governments.”Unlike the Anti-Federalists, Madison claims <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>that the balance of power between the general and the local governments, which JM likened to a scale, would be much more likely to be “disturbed by the preponderancy” of the states than by the<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>federal government under the new system. </i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
* * *</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We have seen, in all the examples of ancient and modern confederacies, the strongest tendency continually betraying itself in the members, to despoil the general government of its authorities, with a very ineffectual capacity in the latter to defend itself against the encroachments. Although in most of these examples, the system has been so dissimilar from that under consideration, as greatly to weaken any inference concerning the latter, from the fate of the former; yet as the states will retain, under the proposed constitution, a very extensive portion of active sovereignty, the inference ought not to be wholly disregarded. In the Achaean league, it is probable that the federal head had a degree and species of power, which gave it a considerable likeness to the government framed by the convention. The Lycian confederacy, as far as its principles and form are transmitted, must have borne a still greater analogy to it. Yet history does not inform us, that either of them ever degenerated, or tended to degenerate, into one consolidated government. On the contrary, we know that the ruin of one of them proceeded from the incapacity of the federal authority to prevent the dissensions, and finally the disunion of the subordinate authorities. These cases are the more worthy of our attention, as the external causes by which the component parts were pressed together, were much more numerous and powerful than in our case; and consequently, less powerful ligaments within would be sufficient to bind the members to the head, and to each other.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In the feudal system, we have seen a similar propensity exemplified. Notwithstanding the want of proper sympathy in every instance between the local sovereigns and the people, and the sympathy in some instances between the general sovereign and the latter; it usually happened that the local sovereigns prevailed in the rivalship for encroachments. Had no external dangers enforced internal harmony and subordination; and particularly, had the local sovereigns possessed the affections of the people, the great kingdoms in Europe would at this time consist of as many independent princes, as there were formerly feudatory barons.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The state governments will have the advantage of the federal government, whether we compare them in respect to the immediate dependence of the one on the other; to the weight of personal influence which each side will possess; to the powers respectively vested in them; to the predilection and probable support of the people; to the disposition and faculty of resisting and frustrating the measures of each other. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The state governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government; whilst the latter is nowise essential to the operation or organization of the former. Without the intervention of the state legislatures, the president of the United States cannot be elected at all. They must in all cases have a great share in his appointment, and will, perhaps, in most cases, of themselves determine it. The senate will be elected absolutely and exclusively by the state legislatures. Even the house of representatives, though drawn immediately from the people, will be chosen very much under the influence of that class of men, whose influence over the people obtains for themselves an election into the state legislatures. Thus, each of the principal branches of the federal government will owe its existence more or less to the favour of the state governments, and must consequently feel a dependence, which is much more likely to beget a disposition too obsequious, than too overbearing towards them. On the other side, the component parts of the state governments will in no instance be indebted for their appointment to the direct agency of the federal government, and very little, if at all, to the local influence of its members.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The number of individuals employed under the constitution of the United States, will be much smaller than the number employed under the particular states. There will consequently be less of personal influence on the side of the former than of the latter. . . .</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments, are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the state governments in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the state governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate indeed the federal powers may be rendered to the national defence, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favour their ascendancy over the governments of the particular states.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If the new constitution be examined with accuracy and candour, it will be found that the change which it proposes, consists much less in the addition of <span style="font-size: 10.0pt;">NEW POWERS</span> to the union, than in the invigoration of its <span style="font-size: 10.0pt;">ORIGINAL POWERS</span>. The regulation of commerce, it is true, is a new power; but that seems to be an addition which few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained. The powers relating to war and peace, armies and fleets, treaties and finance, with the other more considerable powers, are all vested in the existing congress by the articles of confederation. The proposed change does not enlarge these powers; it only substitutes a more effectual mode of administering them. The change relating to taxation, may be regarded as the most important: and yet the present congress have as complete authority to <span style="font-size: 10.0pt;">REQUIRE</span> of the states indefinite supplies of money for the common defence and general welfare, as the future congress will have to require them of individual citizens; and the latter will be no more bound than the states themselves have been, to pay the quotas respectively taxed on them. Had the states complied punctually with the articles of confederation, or could their compliance have been enforced by as peaceable means as may be used with success towards single persons, our past experience is very far from countenancing' an opinion, that the state governments would have lost their constitutional powers, and have gradually undergone an entire consolidation. To maintain that such an event would have ensued, would be to say at once, that the existence of the state governments is incompatible with any system whatever, that accomplishes the essential purposes of the union.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4888906609369633887.post-71178897285135898182011-08-21T11:50:00.000-07:002011-08-28T23:32:53.257-07:00Madison: The Constitution Neither Federal Nor National, But a Compound of Both<div class="MsoNormal"><i>Adversaries of the constitution argued that the convention framed a national government instead of a confederacy of sovereign states, an act which the conclave at Philadelphia had no right to do. In </i>Federalist 39<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">, Madison countered that the proposed constitution had a mixed character and was </i>sui generis<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> in its compound of federal and national characteristics: </i></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">* * *</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">In order to ascertain the real character of the government, it may be considered in relation to the foundation on which it is to be established; to the sources from which its ordinary powers are to be drawn; to the operation of those powers; to the extent of them; and to the authority by which future changes in the government are to be introduced.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">On examining the first relation, it appears, on one hand, that the constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but on the other, that this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, bat as composing the distinct and independent states to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several states, derived from the supreme authority in each state—the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the constitution, will not be a national, but a federal act. . . . Each state, in ratifying the constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The next relation is, to the sources from which the ordinary powers of government are to be derived. The house of representatives will derive its powers from the people of America, and the people will be represented in the same proportion, and on the same principle, as they are in a legislature of a particular State. So far the government is national, not federal. The senate, on the other hand, will derive its powers from the states, as political and coequal societies; and these will be represented on the principle of equality in the senate, as they now are in the existing congress. So far the government is federal, not national. The executive power will be derived from a very compound source. The immediate election of the president is to be made by the states in their political characters. The votes allotted to them are in a compound ratio, which considers them partly as distinct and coequal societies; partly as unequal members of the same society. The eventual election, again, is to be made by that branch of the legislature which consists of the national representatives; but in this particular act, they are to be thrown into the form of individual delegations, from so many distinct and coequal bodies politic. From this aspect of the government, it appears to be of a mixed character, presenting at least as many federal as national features.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The difference between a federal and national government, as it relates to the operation of the government, is, by the adversaries of the plan of the convention, supposed to consist in this, that in the former, the powers operate on the political bodies composing the confederacy, in their political capacities; in the latter, on the individual citizens composing the nation, in their individual capacities. On trying the constitution by this criterion, it falls under the national, not the federal character; though perhaps not so completely as has been understood. In several cases, and particularly in the trial of controversies to which states may be parties, they must be viewed and proceeded against in their collective and political capacities only. But the operation of the government on the people in their individual capacities, in its ordinary and most essential proceedings, will, on the whole, in the sense of its opponents, designate it, in this relation, a national government.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">But if the government be national, with regard to the operation of its powers, it changes its aspect again, when we contemplate it in relation to the extent of its powers. The idea of a national government involves in it, not only an authority over the individual citizens, but an indefinite supremacy over all persons and things, so far as they are objects of lawful government Among a people consolidated into one nation, this supremacy is completely vested in the national legislature. Among communities united for particular purposes, it is vested partly in the general, and partly in the municipal legislatures. In the former case, all local authorities are subordinate to the supreme; and may be controled, directed, or abolished by it at pleasure. In the latter, the local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject within their respective spheres, to the general authority, than the general authority is subject to them within its own sphere. In this relation, then, the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several states a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects. It is true, that in controversies relating to the boundary between the two jurisdictions, the tribunal which is ultimately to decide, is to be established under the general government. But this does not change the principle of the case. The decision is to be impartially made, according to the rules of the constitution; and all the usual and most effectual precautions are taken to secure this impartiality. Some such tribunal is clearly essential to prevent an appeal to the sword, and a dissolution of the compact; and that it ought to be established under the general, rather than under the local governments; or, to speak more properly, that it could be safely established under the first alone, is a position not likely to be combated.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">If we try the constitution by its last relation, to the authority by which amendments are to be made, we find it neither wholly national, nor wholly federal. Were it wholly national, the supreme and ultimate authority would reside in the majority of the people of the union; and this authority would be competent at all times, like that of a majority of every national society, to alter or abolish its established government. Were it wholly federal on the other hand, the concurrence of each state in the union would be essential to every alteration that would be binding on all. The mode provided by the plan of the convention, is not founded on cither of these principles. In requiring more than a majority, and particularly, in computing the proportion by states, not by citizens, it departs from the national, and advances towards the federal character. In rendering the concurrence of less than the whole number of states sufficient, it loses again the federal, and partakes of the national character.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The proposed constitution, therefore, even when tested by the rules laid down by its antagonists, is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federal constitution; but a composition of both. In its foundation it is federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of the government are drawn, it is partly federal, and partly national: in the operation of these powers, it is national, not federal; in the extent of them again, it is federal, not national; and finally in the authoritative mode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal, nor wholly national.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com