Anarchist Odyssey of the Federalists Papers, Part 2
July 28th, 2015 update: The author realized that there were some points that needed emphasizing. The entire article is in its original form, but a section titled, “Additional Commentary”, has been added at the end of the article.
By: Matt K. [social title=”” subtitle=”” link=”endtheterrorwar.tumblr.com” icon=”fa-tumblr”]
July 27th, 2015
In Part 1, I examined the first 10 Federalist Papers of Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison. Among the subjects addressed by the first 10 Papers were: Apologia for a Constitution (No. 1), dangers of ‘foreign’ influence (No. 2-5), dissent between States (No. 6-7), consequence of hostilities between States (No. 8), The Union as a safeguard against factions and insurrection (No. 9-10). Nothing in the Federalist/Constitutionalist position, as presented by the authors of the Papers, has convinced me that Statism is a “necessary evil” thus far, nor have my reasons for being an anarchist been persuaded to celebrate the so-called “Founding Fathers” and their conspiracy to use a Union to withhold an extortion racket upon the heads of current and future generations of Americans (*), or other people the Federal government has made depopulationist “war” against throughout the world. Now, we shall continue this journey together.
*Author’s note: Notable examples of extortionist language within the first 10 Federalist Papers: Federalist, No. 1: “…the vigor of GOVERNMENT IS ESSENTIAL to the security of liberty.” Federalist, No. 2: “Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people MUST CEDE TO IT some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.” Federalist, No. 4: As the safety of the whole is the interest of the whole, and CANNOT BE PROVIDED FOR WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, either one or more or many, let us inquire whether one good government is not, relative to the object in question, more competent than any other given number whatever.” Federalist, No. 9: “A firm Union will be of the utmost moment to the PEACE AND LIBERTY of the States, as a barrier against domestic faction and insurrection.” Federalist, No. 10: “In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and SUPPORTING THE CHARACTER OF FEDERALISTS.” In contradictory parlance by the authors, government and liberty are said to be able to coexist, when that isn’t the case at all. Government endangers liberty, in all its forms.
Federalist No. 11, Hamilton:
1. “A further resource for influencing the conduct of European nations toward us, in this respect, would arise from the establishment of a federal navy.”
To start with, Hamilton provides us with insight into the Federalist motive for a naval body (under the Federalist/Constitutionalist/Statist ideology). This is where the Federal government transitions from something focusing on internal subjects (such as ‘insurrection’) to external or international (naval blockades). Here we see the monopoly on violence exert itself outwards to competitive markets, in this case, namely the European nations. In arguing for “peace and liberty” like Hamilton previously did in Federalist No. 9, yet simultaneously advocating a “resource for influencing conduct of European nations toward us” (through naval raids) Hamilton is playing with a double-edged sword against his audience where he claims the Federalists want “peace” yet will resort to warfare. It’s positively “Orwellian” in its Statist doublespeak, before Eric Blair was even born! (*)
*Author’s note: Edward S. Herman: “What is really important in the world of doublespeak is THE ABILITY TO LIE, whether knowingly or unconsciously, and to GET AWAY WITH IT; and the ability to use lies and choose and shape facts selectively, blocking out those that don’t fit an agenda or program.” Beyond Hypocrisy, pg. 3
2. “By a steady adherence to the Union we may hope, erelong, to become the arbiter of Europe in America, and to be able to incline the balance of European competitions in this part of the world as our interest may dictate.”
By adherence to an extortion racket, the Federalists hope, to become arbitrators of European influences in America and to manipulate them according to the Federalists “interests” to dictate. Notice Hamilton says “our interest“, implying that of the aristocratic Federalists, NOT the interests of the average American citizen. Government is unsympathetic, and violent. Nothing Hamilton has argued thus far, has shown me “the light” away from anarchism.
3. “Under a vigorous national government, the natural strength and resources of the country, directed to a common interest, would baffle all the combinations of European jealousy to restrain our growth.”
Before making this statement, Hamilton asserts in ending the previous paragraph, quote: ‘A nation, despicable by its weakness, forfeits even the privilege of being neutral.’ Under a Stateless society, strength and use of resources could be equivalently allocated to respond to any claimed European threat to “American” interests, without government existing. If the cost of so-called ‘neutrality’ is strength or violence towards others, then it’s NOT neutral at all. It’s imperialistic, despotic, and/or dictatorial on a local level. Hardly comforting consequences of a “vigorous national government.” America’s military and naval growth has faced minimal opposition historically, making the argument of “European jealousy” questionable. Due to the Federalist’s national government violently securing and taking resources from other peoples and countries, the military prowess has all but stood unopposed from entities of equal or greater international strength.
4. “That unequaled spirit of enterprise, which signalizes the genius of the American merchants and navigators, and which is in itself an inexhaustible mine of national wealth, would be stifled and lost, and poverty and disgrace would overspread a country which, with wisdom, might make herself the admiration and envy of the world.”
Perhaps so, but the world has no envy or admiration for militaristic adventurism. It stifles the security and liberty of the merchants and navigators that Hamilton praises, thereby inadvertently, destroying the enterprising spirit.
5. “To the establishment of a navy, it must be indispensable.”
Thus we begin the sweet nectar language of America being the so-called “indispensable nation” (or is that, expendable?), with the omission of how the Federal government violently extorts those in the armed forces, including those in the naval service. The nerve of this guy to speak of every American being granted unhindered liberty, then contradicting himself, calls for more government!! This is the faux compassion of Statism towards those it subjugates and enslaves, which anarchism or a Stateless society makes no promises of granting.
6. “A unity of commercial, as well as political, interests, can only result from a unity of government.”
Hamilton omits that unification, yet again, doesn’t require government to function or exist.
7. “It belongs to us to vindicate the honor of the human race, and to teach that assuming brother, moderation. Union will enable us to do it. (..) Let Americans disdain to be the instruments of European greatness! Let the thirteen States, bound together in a strict and indissoluble Union, concur in erecting one great American system, superior to the control of all transatlantic force or influence, and able to dictate the terms of the connection between the old and the new world!”
Hamilton disdainfully discredits the British Empire for its misbehavior throughout the world, then asserts the above statements in glorifying America’s naval force upon the world in replacement of the English regiment over the planet. What blatant hypocrisy.
Federalist No. 12, Hamilton:
1. “If these remarks have any foundation, that state of things which will best enable us to improve and extend so valuable a resource must be best adapted to our political welfare. And it cannot admit of a serious doubt that this state of things must rest on the basis of a general Union.”
Political welfare with regards to revenue is praised on the foundations of the Union government, by Hamilton. To rephrase, the aristocratic elite and their current successors of political offices are nothing more than self-enabling extortionists who praise themselves in their achievements of governance over others through a monopoly on violence. Venue is gained violently, yet it’s argued that “anarchy is chaos.” What rubbish!
2. “If, on the contrary, there be but one government pervading all the States, there will be, as to the principal part of our commerce, but one side to guard – the Atlantic coast.”
This argument might’ve held some water if the singular government pervading the States didn’t also include the other coastline, which is currently where we stand. Instead of having one side to guard, the one government pervading all States is confronted with several coastlines and land passages.
3. “One national government would be able, at much less expense, to extend the duties on imports, beyond comparison, further than would be practicable to the States separately, or to any partial confederacies.”
In a Stateless society (anarchistic), the issue can be resolved without government existing. A nation-state isn’t the default option to handling imports.
4. “A nation cannot long exist without revenues.”
One of the few things Hamilton has correct. An extortion racket can’t exist very long without coercive means of enforcement. A suit’s “revenue” is a common man’s “tax”.
5. “The wants of the government can never obtain an adequate supply, unless all the sources of revenue are open to its demands, the finances of the community, under such embarrassments, cannot be put into a situation consistent with its respectability or its security.”
Notice how Hamilton speaks of the government’s “security”, not the security and well-being or liberty of Americans on the subject of revenue. Quite telling, that. A government’s “wants” aren’t always consistent with popular grievances. If anything, the government’s “security” and “wants” are contrary (*) and even threatening to the liberty of the governed – whether consent is expressly given or silently taken for granted. As such, the very first axiom of the first Federalist Paper (pleading for the cause of a Constitutional government) has diverted to the selfish desires of government, NOT on the whims or liberty of the common citizen. The subject of revenue becomes not a question of popular vote, but of coercive monopoly via the Constitutional government. Lastly, a free and anarchistic people have no reason to pay “respectability” to ANY government.
*Author’s note: Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States, page 47, 49, 54. As should be obvious by these quotations, what’s termed “government security” doesn’t parallel popular sentiments of the general public.
6. “Public and private distress will keep pace with each other in gloomy concert; and unite in deploring the infatuation of those counsels which led to disunion.”
Hamilton sure does adore romanticizing his Constitutionalist fantasy wherein everybody gets along (public and private citizens), while omitting the dangers of government in general. The question here isn’t whether America stands disunited or united, but why should a FREE PEOPLE tolerate an extortion racket that calls itself government and promises protection of liberty while simultaneously acting contradictory to liberty.
Federalist No. 13, Hamilton:
1. “If the States are united under one government, there will be but one national civil list to support; if they are divided into several confederacies, there will be as many different national civil lists to be provided for – and each of them, as to the principal departments, coextensive with that which would be necessary for a government of the whole.”
Hamilton begins the 13th Federalist Paper with a horrible start: The presumption that government is required in order to address a civil list. There’s no reason a Stateless society couldn’t achieve the same redress of grievances all that’s required is the opportunity and voluntary interaction of the concerned civil parties who put together their respective list(s) and interact to achieve answers in the absence of government. (*)
*Author’s note: A petition from neighborhood A to, say neighborhood B, in a Stateless society allows for interaction and subject resolution on the civil list(s) between free people themselves. Government isn’t necessary to petition or redress grievances.
2. “The ideas of men who speculate upon the dismemberment of the empire seem generally turned toward three confederacies – one consisting of the four Northern, another of the four Middle, and a third of the five Southern States.”
I actually quite like the Hamilton goes out of his way to admit that America was formed as an “empire” of its time, not that it justifies his Federalist positions or anything, but honestly is always a good course of action towards your respective audiences. If you ask any other American whether they feel that their country is imperialistic, the most common Statist response would be absolute denial. Removing government, under anarchist motives and beliefs, is the single largest step to dismantling the rampant imperialism of the State. Even his Federalist compatriot Thomas Jefferson admitted that the rise of the American empire was dependent upon the decline of the Spanish empire. It should be noted that neither Hamilton nor Jefferson had bothered to ask, “If States grow into empires, why do we need to form new States?” The fallacy of Statism has met across political party lines for many decades, it’s hardly a new phenomenon that one “reaches across the aisle” to their Washington Consensus allies. As mentioned previously, I could care less whether the government is “Union” or “Confederate”.
3. “If we also take into view the military establishments which it has been shown would unavoidably result from the jealousies and conflicts of the several nations into which the States would be divided, we shall clearly discover that a separation would be not less injurious to the economy, than to the tranquility, commerce, revenue, and liberty of every part.”
Hamilton speaks of establishing and maintaining States, and then beguiles the reader by speaking secondarily of liberty. A contradiction of objectives, if ever there was one.
Federalist No. 14, Madison:
1. “We have seen the necessity of the Union, as our bulwark against foreign danger, as the conservator of peace among ourselves, as the guardian of our commerce and other common interests, as the only substitute for those military establishments which have subverted the liberties of the Old World, and as the proper antidote for the diseases of faction, which have proved fatal to other popular governments, and of which alarming symptoms have been betrayed by our own.”
I’ve seen no such “necessity” to resolve these subjects after reading the previous Federalist Papers (or Madison’s previous, No. 10), especially with any form of government.
2. “A democracy, consequently, will be confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended over a large region.”
Here we go again, the false dichotomy, similar to Hamilton’s “Union” vs. “Confederacy” rhetoric. The difference is the words are changed to “Democracy” and “Republic.” As an anarchist, no form of government or rulership over others appeals to me, including the sweet sounds of a ‘republic’ or ‘democracy.’ If we logically assume that Madison collaborated and agreed with Hamilton in America being an empire (No. 13 above), then evidently it had identified itself as a “Republican Empire”.
3. “In the first place it is to be remembered that the general government is NOT (*) to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws.”
Then why does Hamilton propose a Constitution in the first Federalist Paper, and the end result is a Constitution that formulates the process for ADMINISTERING LAWS via the legislation of Bills? The Federalists are really astounding in their hypocrisies, contradictions, and false dichotomies. If the “general government” doesn’t exist to MAKE or ADMINISTER laws, then the whole objective of so-called “law enforcement” entities throughout the entire United States federal and local government(s) — are rogue agents of state terrorism against the American public. All forms of “policing” to ENFORCE LAWS are null and void, if we are to believe Madison’s words above. If he wasn’t pleading the case for the formation of the Federal government of the United States, Madison almost sounds anarchistic, but not quite. He falls just short of himself. Every “law” made and administered, federally, and supported by local governments across the States, evidently wouldn’t be recognized by Madison if the above statement is to hold any legitimacy – as that isn’t the charge of the ‘general government.’ Madison says the Federal government SHOULDN’T be held responsible for its own actions, but the Constitution of 1787 actually REINFORCES such a system of charging it with making and administering laws. Make whatever sense of that you can. Article I, Section 7, Clause 2 puts the ‘Constitutional’ obligation on the government to both MAKE and ADMINISTER the laws, contrary to Madison’s words above.
Furthermore, the Presidential veto, enumerated in the Presentment Clause, is a Constitutional exception to separation of powers doctrine, wherein the executive, in a ‘limited’ occurrence, is allowing the exercise of a legislative function to ‘check’ the power of the legislature itself. Other Federalists argued contradictory to curb the ‘passions of democracy’ to lobby legislature to pass anti-Constitutional trash. [**]
[*] My emphasis, the original doesn’t contain capitalization of the word.
[**] Special thanks to Kyle Rearden from The Last Bastille for offering an alternative perspective regarding my above argument on Madison’s quote.
4. “A second observation to be made is that the immediate object of the federal Constitution is to secure the union of the thirteen primitive States, which we know to be practicable; and to add to them such other States as may arise in their own bosoms, or in their neighborhoods, which we cannot doubt to be equally practicable.”
Translation: “The immediate objective of the federal Constitution is to enforce our violent monopoly and extortion racket upon other people. We will incorporate others into this Union over time, because it is practical, whether they object to our objectives or not.” I’ve read up to 14 Federalist Papers at this point, and I still fail to understand the fawning over the “Founding Fathers”/Federalists, it’s quite disgusting that my fellow Americans continue such an archaic, almost religious, devotion (or worse, deification..) to these fallible humans of the past. It’s been several decades since the countries so-called “Founding”, you’d think we’d break from the indoctrinating nonsense imposed upon us.
5. “A fourth and still more important consideration is, that as almost every State will, on one side or other, be a frontier, and will thus find, in regard to its safety, an inducement to make some sacrifices for the sake of the general protection; so the States which lie at the greatest distance from the heart of the Union, and which, of course, may partake least of the ordinary circulation of its benefits, will be at the same time immediately contiguous to foreign nations, and will consequently stand, on particular occasions, in greatest need of its strength and resources.”
There’s no reason the independent State in question couldn’t defend itself, for its own safety in the absence of the “Union”, but that isn’t the point of my series here. Neither the “Union” nor States mentioned by Madison would’ve had to concern themselves about any “safety” whatsoever if they didn’t support military adventurism under such things as the “Manifest Destiny” by America’s sixth President: John Quincy Adams, or even more blatant the “Monroe Doctrine.” Such dangerous actions speak, not for the “safety” of Americans, but for the death and destruction brought upon anyone not identified as American, much less an allied State.
6. “The kindred blood which flows in the veins of American citizens, the mingled blood which they have shed in defense of their sacred rights, consecrate their Union, and excite horror at the idea of their becoming aliens, rivals, enemies.”
Such kindred feelings aren’t required under a government (Union or otherwise). I don’t see how rights are “sacred” under the Federal (or any) government. The insurrection clause of the Constitution makes American citizens “enemies” of their own government, for dissident thoughts and/or actions. Given that the Federal government (‘Union’) considers peaceful protests as ‘low-level terrorism’, that shows the feigned compassion for Americans exposed to the Confederacy, or supposedly ‘worse’, becoming alien anarchists who don’t give a damned about either the Union or Confederacy.
7. “Had no important step been taken by the leaders of the Revolution for which a precedent could not be discovered, no government established of which an exact model did not present itself, the people of the United States might, at this moment have been numbered among the melancholy victims of misguided councils, must at best have been laboring under the weight of some of those forms which have crushed the liberties of the rest of mankind.”
I find it difficult to believe the Federalists themselves hadn’t provided “misguided councils“, given the contradictory and hypocritical language examined herein the Federalist Papers themselves.
Federalist No. 15, Hamilton:
1. “In the course of the preceding papers, I have endeavored, my fellow-citizens, to place before you, in a clear and convincing light, the importance of Union to your political safety and happiness.”
While I’m not a person of State of New York (the named audience of the Federalist Papers), I remain unconvinced on the importance of the Union, political safety or happiness.
2. “It must in truth be acknowledged that, however these may differ in other respects, they in general appear to harmonize in this sentiment, at least, that there are material imperfections in our national system, and that something is necessary to be done to rescue us from impending anarchy.”
Before the above statement, Hamilton pleads for the “new Constitution” to the people of New York. Anarchy, an absence of rulers, would be preferable to the Federalist’s self-admitted “imperfect national system.”
3. “We have neither troops, nor treasury, nor government. (*) ‘I mean for the Union.’ ”
The Federalists, up to this point, have displayed no sensible reasons to formulate a government where a Stateless-anarchistic society could equally answer foreign and domestic issues.
4. “This is the melancholy situation to which we have been brought by those very maxims and councils which would now deter us from adopting the proposed Constitution; and which, not content with having conducted us to the brink of a precipice, seem resolved to plunge us into the abyss that awaits us below.”
I’ve seen nothing to display confidence in the “proposed Constitution”, much less anything else presented by the authors of the Federalist Papers, thus far.
5. “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 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.”
Hamilton plays a peculiar tune here, because the sword still exists, behind the magistrate. Ready to decapitate voices who distrust the “new Constitution.”
6. “We must extend the authority of the Union to the persons of the citizens, – the only proper objects of government.”
This sounds against the cause of liberty to American citizens, since Hamilton literally calls them objects (slaves?) to its purposes.
7. “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.”
If not the intended desire of the Federalists, it appears that just such a scenario has been historically adopted regarding the U.S. government. There is no happiness to be gained from the expectation of obedience to the State over individual liberty.
8. “Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice, without constraint.”
That’s ridiculous apologia for the existence of ANY government. The passion of a man to dictate the lives of others doesn’t need to be granted governing authority above others.
9. “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.”
Anarchism wants neither the “substance” nor the “shadow” of governance. The State is rejected, regardless if Statists fight amongst themselves or shake hands with each other.
10. “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.”
That would’ve been an appropriate end to the extortion racket and violent monopoly the Federalist’s supported from the start.
Federalist No. 16, Hamilton:
1. “This exceptionable principle may, as truly as emphatically, be styled the parent of anarchy: It has been seen that delinquencies in the members of the Union are its natural and necessary offspring; and that whenever they happen, the only constitutional remedy is force, and the immediate effect of the use of it, civil war.”
After praising the antiquated confederacies of Lycia and Achea, Hamilton calls for initiation of force towards those that don’t embrace his Statist Union. They are apparently “delinquents”, offspring of anarchy. He calls the ‘civil war’ a necessary event for ‘Constitutional remedies’ to dissidents in the Union. This is tyrannical, deceptive, political language.
2. “It is not probable, considering the genius of this country, that the complying States would often be inclined to support the authority of the Union by engaging in a war against the non-complying States.”
History has told us quite a different story. Not only was compliance to the Union expected, but because of the draft, war against non-complying States is precisely what happened. To quote from a Social Studies course: “Slavery had already been abolished by many nations, including Haiti (1804), Chile (1823), Canada (1833) and Sweden (1847). People in the Southern states were very afraid that President Lincoln would abolish slavery. As a result they decided to secede from the United States and make a new nation called The Confederate States of America. Jefferson Davis was elected president. Lincoln felt it was very important that all the states stay united as one nation and that IF THE SOUTHERN STATES DID NOT COMPLY, force would be used against the Confederacy. The Confederacy felt this was an invasion of southern territory and attack the federal forces at Ft. Sumter in April 1861. The Civil War had begun.”
3. “As to those partial commotions and insurrections, which sometimes disquiet society, from the intrigues of an inconsiderable faction, or from sudden or occasional ill humors that do not infect the great body of the community the general government could command more extensive resources for the suppression of disturbances of that kind than would be in the power of any single member.”
The States were supposedly founded upon the virtuous character of “insurrection” against the British Empire, the Federalists are hypocrites for denouncing “insurrectionists” they govern over (as well as their Statist successors) who wish to abolish their extortion racket called government.
Federalist No. 17, Hamilton:
1. “There is one transcendent advantage belonging to the province of the State governments, which alone suffices to place the matter in a clear and satisfactory light, I mean the ordinary administration of criminal and civil justice. This, of all others, is the most powerful, most universal, and most attractive source of popular obedience and attachment. It is that which, being the immediate and visible guardian of life and property, having its benefits and its terrors in constant activity before the public eye, regulating all those personal interests and familiar concerns to which the sensibility of individuals is more immediately awake, contributes, more than any other circumstance, to impressing upon the minds of the people, affection, esteem, and reverence towards the government.”
The U.S. government didn’t seem to have any issues in disrespecting the lives, liberties, and properties of indigenous Americans. Broken treaties, genocide, and racial manipulations to achieve war are hardly the factors that make up a “guardian.” Rather, a great exploiter and dangerous opportunist that ruins the lives of all it governs over. That’s government, Mr. Hamilton.
2. “The power of the head of the nation was commonly too weak, either to preserve the public peace, or to protect the people against the oppression of their immediate lords. This period of European affairs is emphatically styled by historians, the times of feudal anarchy.”
The foolishness of feudal chaos is an easy point against Statism altogether, and not its absence. There is no “public peace” when feudalism depends upon hierarchical violence, nor can the “oppression of immediate lords” be alleviated when said lords are granted recognition for their authority in subjugating others.
3. “Scotland will furnish a cogent example. The spirit of clanship which was, at an early day, introduced into that kingdom, uniting the nobles and their dependents by ties equivalent to those of kindred, rendered the aristocracy a constant overmatch for the power of the monarch, till the incorporation with England subdued its fierce and ungovernable spirit, and reduced it within those rules of subordination which a more rational and more energetic system of civil polity had previously established in the latter kingdom.”
Hamilton has made no substantial case for the U.S. Constitution or federal government, and as far as I’m concerned, European aristocracy and monarchy share equal damnation alongside it.
4. “A concise review of the events that have attended confederate governments will further illustrate this important doctrine; an inattention to which has been the great source of our political mistakes, and has given our jealousy a direction to the wrong side.”
It’s not that “political mistakes” exist, it’s that political reformism itself is a mistake. A false hope in promising freedoms that are inherent without governance.
Federalist No. 18, Hamilton & Madison:
1. “Athens, as we learn from Demosthenes, was the arbiter of Greece seventy-three years. The Lacedaemonians next governed it twenty-nine years; at a subsequent period, after the battle of Leuctra, the Thebans had their turn of domination.”
A historical changing of the guard is a bad start to base your arguments for the U.S. Constitution & federal government. Another point against Statist schizophrenia.
2. “Had the Greeks, says the Abbe Milot, been as wise as they were courageous, they would have been admonished by experience of the necessity of a closer union, and would have availed themselves of the peace which followed their success against the Persian arms, to establish such a reformation.”
Even if we propose the strategy is sound, the “closer union” doesn’t have to be formed via governance to prepare a collective defense against the Persian armies.
3. “The Amphictyonic council, according to the superstition of the age, imposed a fine on the sacrilegious offenders. The Phocians, being abetted by Athens and Sparta, refused to submit to the decree.”
Good for the Phocians. Just because something is decreed doesn’t therefore make it righteous, moral, or just.
4. “Philip gladly seized the opportunity of executing the designs he had long planned against the liberties of Greece. By his intrigues and bribes he won over to his interests the popular leaders of several cities; by their influence and votes, gained admission into the Amphictyonic council; and by his arts and his arms, made himself master of the confederacy.”
If the Grecians had no State, Philip of Macedon would be walking into unknown territory and be open to receiving his own bit of intrigues and bribery. (The “bribes” in question would be goods and services exchanged for allying with Macedonians who tire of Philip’s tyranny.) An absence of rulers, and a reach out by the Grecians to other Macedonians to topple Philip’s rule would be a reverse stratagem founded upon the successes of having no rulers. The liberties of Greece would be untouched, by foreign or domestic dangers of the State.
5. “When Lacedaemon was brought into the league by Philopoemen, it was attended with an abolition of the institutions and laws of Lycurgus, and an adoption of those of the Achaeans. The Amphictyonic confederacy, of which she had been a member, left her in the full exercise of her government and her legislation. This circumstance alone proves a very material difference in the genius of the two systems.”
The Achaen League could have plausibly equally succeeded without the institution of government, likewise, the Amphictyonic confederacy wouldn’t have required existence either upon the principles of living without any arbitrary rulership whatsoever to handle societal or communal affairs.
6. “Macedon saw its progress; but was hindered by internal dissensions from stopping it.”
In previous sentences, Hamilton (or Madison) treat dissent as a negative factor yet without it, Macedon wouldn’t have seen the “progress” noted here. Someone wants it both ways.
7. “The dread of the Macedonian power induced the league to court the alliance of the Kings of Egypt and Syria, who, as successors of Alexander, were rivals of the king of Macedon. This policy was defeated by Cleomenes, king of Sparta, who was led by his ambition to make an unprovoked attack on his neighbors, the Achaeans, and who, as an enemy to Macedon, had interest enough with the Egyptian and Syrian princes to effect a breach of their engagements with the league.”
An anarchist true to his beliefs accepts no “Kingly” power, European or otherwise. Macedonians, Egyptians, Syrians, and Spartans denouncing the so-called “kings” would show some real “progress.”
8. “The Achaeans soon experienced, as often happens, that a victorious and powerful ally is but another name for a master. All that their most abject compliances could obtain from him was a toleration of the exercise of their laws.”
Proof positive that reinforces my previous statement: Nobody needs to embrace “masters” over themselves or others.
9. “Philip was conquered; Macedon subdued. A new crisis ensued to the league. Dissensions broke out among its’ members. These the Romans fostered. Callicrates and other popular leaders became mercenary instruments for inveigling their countrymen.”
It doesn’t necessarily matter how many contend for rulership, only that their power is abolished.
10. “By these arts this union, the last hope of Greece, the last hope of ancient liberty, was torn into pieces; and such imbecility and distraction introduced, that the arms of Rome found little difficulty in completing the ruin which their arts had commenced.”
Liberty is in the hearts of defiant people who refuse rulers, NOT upon ancient means of governance. The imbecility and distraction of the Federalists is that they’ve the most flimsy arguments for coercing Americans into embracing their “Constitution” and voting to encourage the power of the U.S. federal establishment. It can all rot in hell for all I care.
11. “I have thought it not superfluous to give the outlines of this important portion of history; both because it teaches more than one lesson, and because, as a supplement to the outlines of the Achaean constitution, it emphatically illustrates the tendency of federal bodies rather to anarchy among the members, than to tyranny in the head.”
Hamilton, or Madison (whoever “I” is) the anarchy without rulers is always preferable to ANY tyrannies. Notice the chaos that ensued from some people preferring closer rulers, as opposed to further ones, unless they were mercenaries who just care for any “general welfare of the State and its subjects.” The chaos wasn’t created entirely out of dissident voices who didn’t desire to be ruled over, and unless they did, it was only to seek out new rulers. Pathetic theatrics and unnecessary blood spilled for Statist powers of ancient civilizations.
Federalist No. 19, Hamilton & Madison:
1. “In the early ages of Christianity, Germany was occupied by seven distinct nations, who had no common chief. The Franks, one of the number, having conquered the Gauls, established the kingdom which has taken its name from them. In the ninth century Charlemagne, its warlike monarch, carried his victorious arms in every direction; and Germany became a part of his vast dominions. On the dismemberment, which took place under his sons, this part was erected into a separate and independent empire. Charlemagne and his immediate descendants possessed the reality, as well as the ensigns and dignity of imperial power. But the principal vassals, whose fiefs had become hereditary, and who composed the national diets which Charlemagne had not abolished, gradually threw off the yoke and advanced to sovereign jurisdiction and independence. The force of imperial sovereignty was insufficient to restrain such powerful dependents; or to preserve the unity and tranquility of the empire. The most furious private wars, accompanied with every species of calamity, were carried on between the different princes and states. The imperial authority, unable to maintain the public order, declined by degrees till it was almost extinct in the anarchy, which agitated the long interval between the death of the last emperor of the Suabian, and the accession of the first emperor of the Austrian lines. In the eleventh century the emperors enjoyed full sovereignty: In the fifteenth they had little more than the symbols and decorations of power.”
True enough, like other parts of Europe, what we know as Germany today was born out of the corpse of the Roman Empire. This tells little to nothing about why the United States ‘Union’ is justifiable in any way, short of imperialist wars and a centralized authority (command-in-chief). The very justification that Hamilton & Madison are relying upon to make their case for the Union, above the Confederacy, displays a very unconvincing narrative.
2. “The history of Germany is a history of wars between the emperor and the princes and states; of wars among the princes and states themselves; of the licentiousness of the strong, and the oppression of the weak; of foreign intrusions, and foreign intrigues; of requisitions of men and money disregarded, or partially complied with; of attempts to enforce them, altogether abortive, or attended with slaughter and desolation, involving the innocent with the guilty; of general imbecility, confusion, and misery.”
In a world where no authority would be embraced on a whim, at the point of a sword or the crosshairs of a gun, no Statist emperor or princeling would be heartily embraced.
3. “Previous to the peace of Westphalia, Germany was desolated by a war of thirty years, in which the emperor, with one half of the empire, was on one side, and Sweden, with the other half, on the opposite side. Peace was at length negotiated, and dictated by foreign powers; and the articles of it, to which foreign powers are parties, made a fundamental part of the Germanic constitution.”
While I agree it’s important to reflect upon the past, nothing is substantially being gained from the Federalists’ position. The historic foundations for the German Constitution are a trivial case that has nothing to do with explaining why American’s should be coerced into accepting the Constitution of 1787 or its subsequent formation of government – the entire premise of Hamilton’s 1st Federalist Paper.
4. “In Donawerth, a free and imperial city of the circle of Suabia, the Abb 300 de St. Croix enjoyed certain immunities which had been reserved to him. In the exercise of these, on some public occasions, outrages were committed on him by the people of the city. The consequence was that the city was put under the ban of the empire, and the Duke of Bavaria, though director of another circle, obtained an appointment to enforce it. He soon appeared before the city with a corps of ten thousand troops, and finding it a fit occasion, as he had secretly intended from the beginning, to revive an antiquated claim, on the pretext that his ancestors had suffered the place to be dismembered from his territory, he took possession of it in his own name, disarmed, and punished the inhabitants, and re-annexed the city to his domains.”
The notion that you are somehow “free” while living within the jurisdiction of an imperial body is absurd.
5. “So far as the peculiarity of their case will admit of comparison with that of the United States, it serves to confirm the principle intended to be established. Whatever efficacy the union may have had in ordinary cases, it appears that the moment a cause of difference sprang up, capable of trying its strength, it failed.”
None of the previously mentioned cases (Germany, Poland, and Switzerland) provide a solid reasoning why the United States “Union” is an existential boon for liberty where the southern “Confederacy” failed on its own separate merits.
Federalist No. 20, Hamilton & Madison:
1. “The United Netherlands are a confederacy of republics, or rather of aristocracies of a very remarkable texture, yet confirming all the lessons derived from those which we have already reviewed. The union is composed of seven coequal and sovereign states, and each state or province is a composition of equal and independent cities. In all important cases, not only the provinces but the cities must be unanimous.”
Having an aristocratic elite seems to make a “good government” to the Federalists, history has shown that their successors have definitely exploited the circumstances as such.
2. “I make no apology for having dwelt so long on the contemplation of these federal precedents. Experience is the oracle of truth; and where its responses are unequivocal, they ought to be conclusive and sacred. The important truth, which it unequivocally pronounces in the present case, is that a sovereignty over sovereigns, a government over governments, a legislation for communities, as contradistinguished from individuals, as it is a solecism in theory, so in practice it is subversive of the order and ends of civil polity, by substituting violence in place of law, or the destructive coercion of the sword in place of the mild and salutary coercion of the magistracy.”
This doesn’t display the strength in the Union’s position over the Confederacy, but merely their similarities in ruling over the American people. The law is violence, the magistracy’s coercion is no less moral than the sword.
- The above 10 Federalist Papers hold unconvincing rhetoric, not unlike the previous 10. None of the above shows why an anarchist should favor the Federalist’s Constitution and government.
- Hamilton & Madison haven’t shown how liberty can thrive in the presence of the State, upon the simple axiom of how they treat the issue of “insurrection.” The ‘social contract’ with government is void by the very coercive, authoritarian, nature of the State itself that expects unquestioning subservience DESPITE having abolishment clauses. A nullified agreement is no agreement at all.
- Yet again, nothing substantiates how the Union is less an immoral institution than its Confederate neighbor. The inherit problem of government remains consistently the same between them.
“Federalism in the United States is the constitutional relationship between U.S. state governments and the federal government of the United States. Since the founding of the country, and particularly with the end of the American Civil War, power shifted away from the states and towards the national government.” Wikipedia: Federalism in the United States.
Merriam Webster’s definition of anarchy: “a person who rebels against ANY AUTHORITY, established order, or ruling power.”
Federalist No. 11:
Possibly the best example of this Federalist “interest” embodied presently would be the Trilateral Commission, founded by David Rockefeller & Zbigniew Brzezinski. Another contender of American government influence over Europe’s internal affairs, is the reflecting think tank European Council on Foreign Relations. Both of these manifestations prove Hamilton’s naval calculations of ‘American dominance’ over the affairs (and fate) of Europe to be a solidified case. There is no evidence that either the present American or European ruling classes haven’t gone out of their way to respect Hamilton’s visionary wishes, in forming the Trilateral Commission and ECFR.
Federalist No. 12:
“If taxation without consent is robbery, the United States government has never had, has not now, and is never likely to have, a single honest dollar in its treasury. If taxation without consent is not robbery, then any band of robbers have only to declare themselves a government, and all their robberies are legalized.”-Lysander Spooner. Seeds Of Liberty Podcast Episode 6: Taxation.
If we start with the 13 colonies as the basis of Hamilton’s claim regarding the Atlantic coastline, then all other territorial acquisitions are historically rendered invalid, unless mentioned in future Federalist Papers. See: Territorial evolution of the United States.
Hamilton followed Locke, promoting a feudalistic aristocracy, enforcing a government monopoly on various subject matters, and his “government security” can be damned for all I care. Zinn shows us the sort of era that the Federalists lived in, and how people throughout the colonies were manipulated to the interests of the ruling class. Conflict, racism, and ‘security’ of the ruling elite was paramount – everyone else – including landless whites, were forced into horrible conditions. A good example of this is the colonial-era poverty, the formation of class distinctions through the Federalists forming the government, and how the impoverished reacted to conditions lacking personal property for themselves: “In the Carolinas, the Fundamental Constitutions were written in the 1660s by John Locke, who is often considered the philosophical father of the Founding Fathers and the American system. Locke’s constitution set up A FEUDAL-TYPE ARISTOCRACY, in which eight barons would own 40 percent of the colony’s land, and only a baron could be governor. Poor people, desperate for land, squatted on bits of farmland and fought all through the pre-Revolutionary period against the landlords’ attempts to collect rent.” (..) “Through the growth of agriculture and manufacturing into the 1700s, the ruling class was getting most of the benefits and MONOPOLIZED POLITICAL POWER. By 1770, the top 1 percent of property owners owned 44 percent of the wealth.” (..) “The colonial officialdom had found a way of alleviating the danger: by MONOPOLIZING THE GOOD LAND ON THE EASTERN SEABOARD, they forced landless whites to move westward to the frontier, there to encounter the Indians and to be a buffer for the seaboard rich against Indian troubles, while becoming more DEPENDENT ON THE GOVERNMENT FOR PROTECTION. Bacon’s Rebellion was instructive: Better to make war on the Indian, gain the support of the white, divert possible class conflict by turning poor whites against Indians for THE SECURITY OF THE ELITE.”-Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States, pgs. 47, 49, 54.
As should be obvious by these quotations, what’s termed “government security” doesn’t parallel popular sentiments of the general public.
“The native of a city, or an inhabitant who enjoys the freedom and privileges of the city in which he resides; In the United States, a person, native or naturalized, who has the privilege of exercising the elective franchise, or the qualifications which enable him to vote for rulers, and to purchase and hold real estate.” The Last Bastille, Citizen “Legally” Defined.
Federalist No. 13:
October 16, 2012 – A recent poll asked Americans if they felt America actually was an empire. Forty percent said “No.” Lawrence Vance alleges the U.S. is the largest empire in the history of the world, dwarfing the British, Ottoman, and Roman empires in size and scope. Prof. Jerry Kroth looks at the delusion and denial rampant within the American population on this issue, examining our 55 military interventions since World War II, our long and close relationship with dictators, juntas, and monarchs in building our empire, our military presence in over 130 countries of the world (70% of the planet) and what life might look like if we actually dismantled it.
U.S. Constitution (1787): “Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.”-Article I, Section 7, Clause 2.
Manifest Destiny, Continentalism: “The whole continent of North America appears to be destined by Divine Providence to be peopled by one nation, speaking one language, professing one general system of religious and political principles, and accustomed to one general tenor of social usages and customs. For the common happiness of them all, for their peace and prosperity, I believe it is indispensable that they should be associated in one federal Union.”- John Quincy Adams.
How is the Constitutional Convention NOT a form of “misguided council” imposed upon the American people by the Federalists themselves?