The History Book Club discussion

This is the thread for the discussion of FEDERALIST. NO 7.

This paper is titled CONCERNING DANGERS FROM DISSENSIONS BETWEEN THE STATES (CONT'D).

This paper was written by Alexander Hamilton.

by Alexander Hamilton

This is the reading assignment for next week (starting tomorrow April 16th):

FEDERALIST No. 7
Concerning Dangers from Dissensions Between the States (con't)

(Alexander Hamilton)

http://federali.st/7

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

Also, we are able to discuss the current assignment or any of the previous week's assignments so you can always catch up, ask questions and/or participate and comment at any time. In fact, I am adding to them all of the time even the previous weeks. Sometimes it takes longer to digest everything - like last week's essay.

Federalist 7 will open tomorrow April 16th.

The Meyerson Book previously referenced: (we highly recommend this book)

Preface:

These are some of the copious notes that I took from

by Michael Meyerson

1. "This collection of essays (The Federalist Papers) were written in 1787 and 1788 by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison (with a small assist from John Jay), was originally designed as a propaganda piece to influence the debate over ratification of the Constitution.

2. The Federalist not only serves as the single most important resource for interpreting the Constitution, it provides a wise and sophisticated explanation for the uses and abuses of governmental power from Washington to Baghdad.

3. The papers were written a few years after the Revolutionary War. In one sense, the battle over ratification of the Constitution can be seen as the first bare-knuckled political fight in American History. Each side suspected (with good reason) that its letters were being read, if not stolen, by postal carriers loyal to its opponents. Personal attacks and clandestine maneuvering were commonplace. Deals were struck. Promises were broken.

4. The ratification conflict was also waged on an intellectual plane that is difficult to imagine today. Wise and educated men, many of whom were heroes of the revolution, wrote voluminously on the merits and weaknesses of this new plan of government. Both those in favor of the proposed Constitution and those opposing it believed that logic, reason and a clear understanding of history would illuminate the discourse and lead to a proper conclusion."

Source - Meyerson - pages ix - x

The Meyerson Book previously referenced: (we highly recommend this book)

Preface: continued

These are some of the copious notes that I took from:

by Michael Meyerson

1. "When Thomas Jefferson recommended that The Federalist be required reading for students at the University of Virginia, he termed it "an authority to which appeal is habitually made by all...as evidence of the general opinion of those who framed, and of those who accepted the Constitution of the United States, on questions as to its genuine meaning.

2. Both Madison and Hamilton understood that a constitution is greater than the sum of its parts.

3. Thus The Federalist contains a wide array of insights on politicians, human nature, democracy, greed and power -- an array of such astuteness that Theodore Roosevelt would praise it as "on the whole the greatest book dealing with applied politics that there has ever been."

4. It is remarkable how The Federalist's analysis of the separation of powers between the president and Congress can illuminate our understanding of those same issues as they recur in the debate on Iraq or the war on terrorism. The dividing line between the federal and state governments that Madison and Hamilton labored to explicate can be seen at the heart of contemporary battles over such diverse issues as the Clean Air Act and medical marijuana. There is also much we can gain from rediscovering The Federalist's observation that all power can be abused no matter how virtuous those who are wielding it may be.

5. Meyerson points out that there is an ongoing debate between the originalists (folks who state that we should only rely on the original understanding of those who drafted and ratified the Constitution) when interpreting it versus their opponents who feel that we are referring to an interpretation which at the time "jailed those who criticized the government, imprisoned interracial couples attempting to marry and treated women as too weak and emotional to serve as lawyers".

6. Another of Meyerson's goals was to bridge the gap between these polarizing views by demonstrating how and when we should call upon the views of the framers when we interpret the Constitution.

7. Meyerson points out correctly that when Madison and Hamilton analyzed the Constitution they were only focusing on largely issues of separation of powers and the relationship between the national government and the states. He reminds us that the Bill of Rights came later, and the 14th Amendment wasn't even ratified until after the Civil War.

8. Meyerson states that "no one presented a thoughtful, comprehensive analysis of the guarantees of freedom of speech and religion contained in the First Amendment, or the Fourteenth Amendment's promise of equal protection and due process of law.

9 History can teach when and how to use the lessons of history.

10. Meyerson also wants to examine the lives of Hamilton and Madison, their bonds and friendship and their later enmity. Supporters of Madison focus on his defense of individual liberty, his leading role in drafting the Bill of Rights and outspoken belief for religious freedom. Supporters of Hamilton focus on his vision of economic development and fiscal responsibility. He points out that Madison and Hamilton were an 18th century odd couple.

11. Meyerson states one critical lesson can be gleaned by the Federalist and that is "it is folly to ignore the wisdom of those with whom one disagrees." He also hopes that his book can contribute to an atmosphere where respectful and reasoned political discourse is considered an ideal worth pursuing."

Source - Meyerson - pages x - xiv

As we initiate discussion of Federalist Paper number 7; I was struck by the last line of this essay (written by Hamilton)

"Divide et impera must be the motto of every nation that either hates or fears us."

The Latin phrase means divide and command. Why do you think that Hamilton used this phrase and this statement at the end of this essay? What is this phrase's meaning from your viewpoint?

Hamilton makes another footnote as follows in Federalist Paper 7:

In order that the whole subject of these papers may as soon as possible be laid before the public, it is proposed to publish them four times a week—on Tuesday in the New York Packet and on Thursday in the Daily Advertiser.

My feeling is that these papers were taking shape as they were written and that Madison and Hamilton felt a sense of urgency in getting the word out about the importance of ratifying the Constitution sooner rather than later. We did not see this announcement before.

I found some information on the newspaper The New - York Packet and its founder/printer - Samuel Loudon.

https://founders.archives.gov/documen...

NEW YORK PACKET AND AMERICAN ADVERTISER
This was established in 1763 and published by Samuel Loudon. Soon after its publication it was changed from a weekly to a daily, and was continued for several years. It was in existence as late as 1793 under the name of "The Diary, or Loudon's Register.

The story goes that Hamilton was penning these essays in his study while the printer Samuel Loudon waited in order to take them off to get them into print for the next publication (according to Hamilton's close friend Robert Troup).

If you have $32,000 hanging around, this might be a good use of it: (this has since sold)

http://www.baumanrarebooks.com/rare-b...

I guess the printer Samuel Loudon also printed New York money:

http://www.coins.nd.edu/ColCurrency/C...

And a book store:

http://openlibrary.org/b/OL14614573M/...

The First Newspapers:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/t...

Hamilton in Federalist 7 refers to:

"Those who had an opportunity of seeing the inside of the transactions which attended the progress of the controversy between this State and the district of Vermont, can vouch the opposition we experienced, as well from States not interested as from those which were interested in the claim; and can attest the danger to which the peace of the Confederacy might have been exposed, had this State attempted to assert its rights by force."

The New Hampshire Grants:

This was a land dispute between states exacerbated by Benning Wentworth:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hamp...

A little bit about Benning Wentworth who created this hornet's nest and made quite a bit of money from these deals:

http://uppervalleynhvt.com/who-was-be...

This is Benning Wentworth:

Here is a wikipedia synopsis for 7:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federali...

And so we begin:

To the People of the State of New York:

It is sometimes asked, with an air of seeming triumph, what inducements could the States have, if disunited, to make war upon each other? It would be a full answer to this question to say—precisely the same inducements which have, at different times, deluged in blood all the nations in the world. But, unfortunately for us, the question admits of a more particular answer. There are causes of differences within our immediate contemplation, of the tendency of which, even under the restraints of a federal constitution, we have had sufficient experience to enable us to form a judgment of what might be expected if those restraints were removed. ¶ - Paragraph One

Territorial disputes have at all times been found one of the most fertile sources of hostility among nations. Perhaps the greatest proportion of wars that have desolated the earth have sprung from this origin. This cause would exist among us in full force. We have a vast tract of unsettled territory within the boundaries of the United States. There still are discordant and undecided claims between several of them, and the dissolution of the Union would lay a foundation for similar claims between them all. It is well known that they have heretofore had serious and animated discussion concerning the rights to the lands which were ungranted at the time of the Revolution, and which usually went under the name of crown lands. The States within the limits of whose colonial governments they were comprised have claimed them as their property, the others have contended that the rights of the crown in this article devolved upon the Union; especially as to all that part of the Western territory which, either by actual possession, or through the submission of the Indian proprietors, was subjected to the jurisdiction of the king of Great Britain, till it was relinquished in the treaty of peace. This, it has been said, was at all events an acquisition to the Confederacy by compact with a foreign power. It has been the prudent policy of Congress to appease this controversy, by prevailing upon the States to make cessions to the United States for the benefit of the whole. This has been so far accomplished as, under a continuation of the Union, to afford a decided prospect of an amicable termination of the dispute. A dismemberment of the Confederacy, however, would revive this dispute, and would create others on the same subject. At present, a large part of the vacant Western territory is, by cession at least, if not by any anterior right, the common property of the Union. If that were at an end, the States which made the cession, on a principle of federal compromise, would be apt when the motive of the grant had ceased, to reclaim the lands as a reversion. The other States would no doubt insist on a proportion, by right of representation. Their argument would be, that a grant, once made, could not be revoked; and that the justice of participating in territory acquired or secured by the joint efforts of the Confederacy, remained undiminished. If, contrary to probability, it should be admitted by all the States, that each had a right to a share of this common stock, there would still be a difficulty to be surmounted, as to a proper rule of apportionment. Different principles would be set up by different States for this purpose; and as they would affect the opposite interests of the parties, they might not easily be susceptible of a pacific adjustment. ¶ - Paragraph Two

Ben Shapiro Explains THE FEDERALIST PAPERS 7 - Why States Can Get Into A War

Link: https://youtu.be/2RhTCyWdBfk

Alexander Hamilton predicted a great deal - some of the events which occurred in our countries' history which he and the founding fathers predicted about the states.

Federalist 7 was quite prescient because all of the reasons Hamilton talked about in terms of why states can get into war are exactly the reasons that the states did get into the Civil War. He starts out by talking about territorial disputes.

1. Territorial disputes have at all times been found to be one of the fertile sources of hostility among nations. And the greatest percentage of wars that have decimated the Earth have sprung from this origin.

He discusses the vast areas of unsettled territory in the United States; and that there were still discordant and unsettled claims between several of these areas and states and the dissolution of the Union would lay the foundation for similar claims between them all.

He discusses the wide field of western territory which presented the folks at that time with an ample theater for hostile pretensions without any umpire or common judge to interpose between the contending parties.

For example in this vast unsettled western area - if the state of South Carolina wanted to claim some area and the state of New York wanted that same area; they both would want the same claim and then they would then end up getting into a war over it.

This actually happened and it was called "Bleeding Kansas" and there was a referendum and a piece of legislation that said that when Kansas was admitted to the Union that the people of Kansas would be able to vote on whether it was going to be a free state or a slave state.

You then had slave owners rushing into the state; and then you had freeholders also rushing to the state and they were going to war literally with each other.

There were massacres of Americans by Americans. It was basically a small civil war in Kansas called 'Bleeding Kansas". Hamilton therefore had not been wrong even about any of the situations that the founding fathers predicted years earlier - and all of this happened even in the presence of a Federal Government. It could have been so much worse.

2. Hamilton also predicted that there would be trade disputes between these various states. He thought each state or separate Confederacy would pursue a system of commercial policy peculiar to itself.

There was nearly a Civil War in the 1830s over the Tariff of Abominations. The North decided to put tariffs on goods coming in that were to be used by the South. The South was very upset about this and threatened nullification and this caused the nullification crisis that Andrew Jackson swore to break the South over. So we very nearly came to blows over trade.

3. And if there was any debt accrued by a war - it would very difficult to apportion that without a National Government who actually collect taxes.

4. He also discusses laws in violation of private contracts - what happens if you sign a contract with somebody from another state and then that other state just decided to nullify that contract. Hamilton says that this could cause severe conflict and in fact it did cause conflict. For example, the Fugitive Slave Act was designed to enforce property holdings in people which of course was evil but it helped exacerbate the divisions.

5. Hamilton was right that if you did not have a strong central government that you all have allegiance to - you will end up getting into conflicts and wars with each other over all sorts of things and we still had the Civil War when we had one.

Bleeding Kansas:

Bleeding Kansas, (1854–59), small civil war in the United States, fought between proslavery and antislavery advocates for control of the new territory of Kansas under the doctrine of popular sovereignty (q.v.). Sponsors of the Kansas–Nebraska Act (May 30, 1854) expected its provisions for territorial self-government to arrest the “torrent of fanaticism” that had been dividing the nation regarding the slavery issue. Instead, free-soil forces from the North formed armed emigrant associations to populate Kansas, while proslavery advocates poured over the border from Missouri. Regulating associations and guerrilla bands were formed by each side, and only the intervention of the Governor prevented violence in the Wakarusa War, launched in December 1855 over the murder of an antislavery settler. “Bleeding Kansas” became a fact with the Sack of Lawrence (May 21, 1856), in which a proslavery mob swarmed into the town of Lawrence and wrecked and burned the hotel and newspaper office in an effort to wipe out this “hotbed of abolitionism.” Three days later, an antislavery band led by John Brown retaliated in the Pottawatomie Massacre (q.v.). Periodic bloodshed along the border followed as the two factions fought battles, captured towns, and set prisoners free. A political struggle to determine the future state’s position on slavery ensued, centred on the Lecompton Constitution (q.v.) proposed in 1857. The question was finally settled when Kansas was admitted as a free state in January 1861, but, meanwhile, “Bleeding Kansas” had furnished the newly formed Republican Party with a much needed antislavery issue in the national election of 1860. Claims for $400,000 in damages sustained in the border war were later approved by territorial commissioners.

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqZJc...

Learn key facts behind Bleeding Kansas, a series of violent confrontations between pro- and anti-slavery forces during the settling of Kansas, from historian Matthew Pinsker.

Source: Encyclopedia Britannica

The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854

Video: https://youtu.be/QYP854GAPAU

Compromise of 1850

Video: https://youtu.be/j_Bra5yBh6M

What Was the Missouri Compromise? - 1820

Video: https://youtu.be/68gi3C0A9Fo

In discussing disputed western lands as a possible cause of war between states in paragraph two Alexander Hamilton casts the issue as a probable cause of war in the absence of any Federal authority to arbitrate between that states. To me he seems to be establishing a false dichotomy. The issue he is supposed to be defending is the adoption of the Constitution. His argument seems to be implying the premise that rejection of the Constitution will also result in the rejection of the Articles of Confederation. Rejection of the Articles seems to be a straw dog here. Failure to implement the Constitution would not necessarily have ended the confederation under the Articles. Another draft of a Constitution could have resulted in a less strong Federal government or amendments could have been made to the Articles to give some added authority to the congress under the Articles. Are we to suppose that Hamilton felt that rejection of the Constitution would have quickly or immediately resulted in the dissolution of the Articles? Or are we to suppose that rejection of the Constitution would have so strengthened the absolute Anti-Federalists that some of the states would then adopt articles of secession from the existing Confederation? What is Hamilton actually implying in paragraph two?

Jeffrey I did not see that implication but I will reread it. I do not think we know what would have happened to the Articles since they were not working and there were no monies to pay for the government. I guess what could have happened is that we were bankrupt, could not pay our bills and would have ceased to exist and some other country would have taken advantage of the inner turmoil and lack of credit and conquered us. That unfortunate end could have been a possibility.

One thing that I can respond to is that the exchange for adopting the Constitution was that the Bill of Rights with the amendments were attached. I think that compromise made all of the documents that much stronger and highly agreeable to everyone.

I do not think we can suppose anything frankly. I think he is implying that without the Constitution we would have a disaster on our hands and the states would end up in territorial disputes and war.

Any other thoughts on Jeffrey's post or paragraph one or two?

How are we doing on 7?

Bentley wrote: "As we initiate discussion of Federalist Paper number 7; I was struck by the last line of this essay (written by Hamilton)


"Divide et impera must be the motto of every nation that either hates o..."

After his discussion of the internal perils that could arise from dissension between and among states, he finishes by pointing out that foreign interests would prey upon these differences in the hopes of furthering their own interests. This, of course, happened during the Civil War when England provided support to the Confederacy to try to further their economic and imperial interests.

Exactly - it is amazing when you look around the world how that is happening everywhere with weaker nations that need help. How autonomous will Assad ever be when the only way he is surviving is with the help of Russia and Iran and Russian technology. Very strange bedfellows. And you are correct as to how England was working the angles with the Confederacy. A real chance to get the whole pie back.

April 30, 1789: First Inaugural Address - President George Washington

Transcript:

Fellow Citizens of the Senate and the House of Representatives:

Among the vicissitudes incident to life, no event could have filled me with greater anxieties than that of which the notification was transmitted by your order, and received on the fourteenth day of the present month. On the one hand, I was summoned by my Country, whose voice I can never hear but with veneration and love, from a retreat which I had chosen with the fondest predilection, and, in my flattering hopes, with an immutable decision, as the asylum of my declining years: a retreat which was rendered every day more necessary as well as more dear to me, by the addition of habit to inclination, and of frequent interruptions in my health to the gradual waste committed on it by time. On the other hand, the magnitude and difficulty of the trust to which the voice of my Country called me, being sufficient to awaken in the wisest and most experienced of her citizens, a distrustful scrutiny into his qualification, could not but overwhelm with dispondence, one, who, inheriting inferior endowments from nature and unpractised in the duties of civil administration, ought to be peculiarly conscious of his own deficencies. In this conflict of emotions, all I dare aver, is, that it has been my faithful study to collect my duty from a just appreciation of every circumstance, by which it might be affected. All I dare hope, is, that, if in executing this task I have been too much swayed by a grateful remembrance of former instances, or by an affectionate sensibility to this transcendent proof, of the confidence of my fellow-citizens; and have thence too little consulted my incapacity as well as disinclination for the weighty and untried cares before me; my error will be palliated by the motives which misled me, and its consequences be judged by my Country, with some share of the partiality in which they originated.

Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station; it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official Act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the Universe, who presides in the Councils of Nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that his benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the People of the United States, a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes: and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success, the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own; nor those of my fellow-citizens at large, less than either. No People can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the Affairs of men more than the People of the United States. Every step, by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency.

And in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their United Government, the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities, from which the event has resulted, cannot be compared with the means by which most Governments have been established, without some return of pious gratitude along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage.

These reflections, arising out of the present crisis, have forced themselves too strongly on my mind to be suppressed. You will join with me I trust in thinking, that there are none under the influence of which, the proceedings of a new and free Government can more auspiciously commence.

By the article establishing the Executive Department, it is made the duty of the President "to recommend to your consideration, such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient."

The circumstances under which I now meet you, will acquit me from entering into that subject, farther than to refer to the Great Constitutional Charter under which you are assembled; and which, in defining your powers, designates the objects to which your attention is to be given.

It will be more consistent with those circumstances, and far more congenial with the feelings which actuate me, to substitute, in place of a recommendation of particular measures, the tribute that is due to the talents, the rectitude, and the patriotism which adorn the characters selected to devise and adopt them. In these honorable qualifications, I behold the surest pledges, that as on one side, no local prejudices, or attachments; no seperate views, nor party animosities, will misdirect the comprehensive and equal eye which ought to watch over this great assemblage of communities and interests: so, on another, that the foundations of our National policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality; and the pre-eminence of a free Government, be exemplified by all the attributes which can win the affections of its Citizens, and command the respect of the world.

I dwell on this prospect with every satisfaction which an ardent love for my Country can inspire: since there is no truth more thoroughly established, than that there exists in the economy and course of nature, an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness, between duty and advantage, between the genuine maxims of an honest and magnanimous policy, and the solid rewards of public prosperity and felicity: Since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven, can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained: And since the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the Republican model of Government, are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally staked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.

Besides the ordinary objects submitted to your care, it will remain with your judgment to decide, how far an exercise of the occasional power delegated by the Fifth article of the Constitution is rendered expedient at the present juncture by the nature of objections which have been urged against the System, or by the degree of inquietude which has given birth to them.

Instead of undertaking particular recommendations on this subject, in which I could be guided by no lights derived from official opportunities, I shall again give way to my entire confidence in your discernment and pursuit of the public good: For I assure myself that whilst you carefully avoid every alteration which might endanger the benefits of an United and effective Government, or which ought to await the future lessons of experience; a reverence for the characteristic rights of freemen, and a regard for the public harmony, will sufficiently influence your deliberations on the question how far the former can be more impregnably fortified, or the latter be safely and advantageously promoted.

To the preceeding observations I have one to add, which will be most properly addressed to the House of Representatives. It concerns myself, and will therefore be as brief as possible. When I was first honoured with a call into the Service of my Country, then on the eve of an arduous struggle for its liberties, the light in which I contemplated my duty required that I should renounce every pecuniary compensation. From this resolution I have in no instance departed.

And being still under the impressions which produced it, I must decline as inapplicable to myself, any share in the personal emoluments, which may be indispensably included in a permanent provision for the Executive Department; and must accordingly pray that the pecuniary estimates for the Station in which I am placed, may, during my continuance in it, be limited to such actual expenditures as the public good may be thought to require.

Having thus imparted to you my sentiments, as they have been awakened by the occasion which brings us together, I shall take my present leave; but not without resorting once more to the benign parent of the human race, in humble supplication that since he has been pleased to favour the American people, with opportunities for deliberating in perfect tranquility, and dispositions for deciding with unparellelled unanimity on a form of Government, for the security of their Union, and the advancement of their happiness; so his divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views, the temperate consultations, and the wise measures on which the success of this Government must depend.

About this speech
April 30, 1789

Source: Miller Center

Washington calls on Congress to avoid local and party partisanship and encourages the adoption of a Bill of Rights, without specifically calling them by name.

The first President demonstrates his reluctance to accept the post, rejects any salary for the execution of his duties, and devotes a considerable part of the speech to his religious beliefs.

Bear with me - Fed 8 will be set up later today.

May we have week 8 please?

Folks, I am going to advocate for Bentley here. If he is late getting something posted it is likely because work and life are involved. He does a stellar job of moderating and does so as a volunteer. The History book club has become a very large project with much of value to offer but this has come as a result of many hours of volunteer labor. Please be patient as he tries to keep up.

I couldn't agree more. I really appreciate all that he does for this group.

Paragraph 3:
In the wide field of Western territory, therefore, we perceive an ample theatre for hostile pretensions, without any umpire or common judge to interpose between the contending parties. To reason from the past to the future, we shall have good ground to apprehend, that the sword would sometimes be appealed to as the arbiter of their differences. The circumstances of the dispute between Connecticut and Pennsylvania, respecting the land at Wyoming, admonish us not to be sanguine in expecting an easy accommodation of such differences. The Articles of Confederation obliged the parties to submit the matter to the decision of a federal court. The submission was made, and the court decided in favor of Pennsylvania. But Connecticut gave strong indications of dissatisfaction with that determination; nor did she appear to be entirely resigned to it, till, by negotiation and management, something like an equivalent was found for the loss she supposed herself to have sustained. Nothing here said is intended to convey the slightest censure on the conduct of that State. She no doubt sincerely believed herself to have been injured by the decision; and States, like individuals, acquiesce with great reluctance in determinations to their disadvantage.

Paragraph 3 tells about the dispute between Connecticut and Pennsylvania since both had purchased the same land by treaties with the Indians. The land in question was in the Wyoming Valley in what is now northern Pennsylvania. As a lifelong CT resident this was an especially interesting bit of history to me. This is the Wikipedia article about the Pennamite (PA)-Yankee(CT) dispute:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennami...

Also found this reference to the land dispute but no sources are cited for the information.

https://www.webcitation.org/query?url...

Interesting, Jeffrey. When I read about these land disputes, I think about the present-day disputes with Israel and Palestine. There are no easy answers.

Thank you Michael and Tom - yes, my move was updated in terms of dates so I have a shorter window than anticipated this week - Mayflower is packing tomorrow, loading Tuesday, traveling Wednesday and unloading Thursday. This week has been a bear as you might imagine.

Good luck with your move!

I will need it Jerome - I hate moving - you never realize how much stuff you kept you did not need and then you throw it out and wonder what were you thinking.

Bentley wrote: "Jeffrey I did not see that implication but I will reread it. I do not think we know what would have happened to the Articles since they were not working and there were no monies to pay for the gove..."


I have to agree with Bentley here - the weak and ineffective nature of the Articles would likely have bent or warped as years went on.

This especially would be truer with added states which had not been partners with the first 13 in the Revolutionary war.

Maybe better said I agree with Alexander and Bentley

Michael wrote: "Folks, I am going to advocate for Bentley here. If he is late getting something posted it is likely because work and life are involved. He does a stellar job of moderating and does so as a voluntee..."


Me too!!!

Thanks Bentley

Thanks all

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



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

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

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

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

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

Source: CNN

Excellent Article:

‘Federalist’ Principles of Governing Are Dead – Consider the Impasse Over ‘The Wall’
Bob Barr |Posted: Jan 02, 2019 12:01 AM



Two hundred and thirty years ago, three of our Founding Fathers authored a series of essays that came to be known as the “Federalist Papers.”

Thomas Jefferson years later characterized these writings as the “best commentary on the principles of government which ever was written.” In other words, “if you want to understand how American government is supposed to function, read the ‘Federalist Papers.’”

Sadly, it appears obvious few, if any, of the key protagonists in today’s political battles between the three branches of our government that were established in that bygone era (which I consider our “Greatest Generation”) have read, much less truly understand the principles embodied in that collection of essays.

Most Americans are at least vaguely familiar with the fact that our federal government is comprised of three branches – Legislative, Executive, and Judicial.

The men who framed our Constitution, however, incorporated into the mechanisms it created many other important principles; including several that were designed expressly to distance our government from that of Great Britain, the country from which we were splitting.

In establishing the position of “President,” for example, our Framers made clear that this person was not to be selected by, or to be a part of, the Legislative Branch. This is distinct from the British model, in which the chief executive is the “Prime Minister”; chosen not by the voters in general election, but by his or her fellow Members of Parliament, and therefore answerable directly to that body.

By contrast, in our country, the president, as the chief executive, is elected by the citizenry at-large (technically, through “electors”), and therefore answerable to the People of the entire country; not to the Legislative Branch.

Conversely, and in another important principle incorporated into the Constitution, Members of the Legislative Branch (the two Houses of Congress) neither answer to nor are to be controlled by the President. Rather, each Member of Congress (whether Representative or Senator) is to reflect and be answerable to the constituents of his or her district or state; not to the President.

While those interests may from time to time coincide, U.S. Representatives and Senators are not serving in that august institution merely to do a president’s bidding.

So, what has changed (other than a profound ignorance of the principles undergirding our constitutional form of government)? Why do Republican Members of Congress by and large consider it their bounden duty to use their powers and responsibilities to do the bidding of a president simply because the person occupying that office is of the same political party as are they? Similarly, why do Democrats operate in the same mode when the White House is occupied by a person with a “D” after their name?

In a word, what has turned our political structure on its head, is the one thing our Founding Fathers disdained and warned us about – party politics. Especially in the closed, two-party system that has constrained politics in America for more than a century and a half, the primary allegiance deemed important to the vast majority of Representatives and Senators now serving, is to the President who happens to be of their same political party. If the president is a Republican, the congressional leaders of that party consider it their obligation to employ their powers to enact his agenda; and failure to toe that line is considered cause for punishment. The Democrats operate in just the same manner.

Thus have the lines between the Executive and Legislative Branches become muddled, if not largely erased; and most Members of Congress now rarely assert a voice or an agenda independent from that of the president. Members not of the president’s party consider it their primary responsibility to oppose the Administration’s agenda; those who share the president’s political affiliation view it as their almost sacred responsibility to do whatever they can to support the agenda of “their” president.

More:
https://townhall.com/columnists/bobba...

Source: Townhall

I agree with this I really do - what do the others of you think about this? Keep the filibuster and stop the nuclear option - we need to pass bills that reflect the populace of America and not a limited view - bipartisanship is important - and of course reflection and putting the country first over a political party.

Conservatives Need to Love the Filibuster Again
It matters. It really does.
by CHARLES SYKES FEBRUARY 4, 2019 4:01 AM


Huey Long, after his record-breaking filibuster in 1935

Link: https://thebulwark.com/conservatives-...

Source: The Bulwark

The moderator feels we need to go over this paper and make sure that we have covered and explained all paragraphs.

There is ample still to discuss.