POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA

What we are not talking about already elsewhere
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA

Post by thelivyjr »

Philadelphia Freeman’s Journal

May 16, 1787

It seems to be generally felt and acknowledged, that the affairs of this country are in a ruinous situation.

With vast resources in our hands, we are impoverished by the continual drain of money from us in foreign trade; our navigation is destroyed; our people are in debt and unable to pay; industry is at a stand; our public treaties are violated, and national faith, solemnly plighted to foreigners and to our own citizens, is no longer kept.

We are discontented at home, and abroad we are insulted and despised.

In this exigency people naturally look up to the continental Convention, in hopes that their wisdom will provide some effectual remedy for this complication of disorders.

It is perhaps the last opportunity which may be presented to us of establishing a permanent system of Continental Government; and, if this opportunity be lost, it is much to be feared that we shall fall into irretrievable confusion.

How the great object of their meeting is to be attained is a question which deserves to be seriously considered.

Some men, there is reason to believe, have indulged the idea of reforming the United States by means of some refined and complicated schemes of organizing a future Congress in a different form.

These schemes, like many others with which we have been amused in times past, will be found to be merely visionary, and produce no lasting benefit.


The error is not in the form of Congress, the mode of election, or the duration of the appointment of the members.

The source of all our misfortunes is evidently in the want of power in Congress.

To be convinced of this, we need only recollect the vigor, the energy, the unanimity of this country a few years past, even in the midst of a bloody war, when Congress governed the continent.

We have gradually declined into feebleness, anarchy and wretchedness, from that period in which the several States began to exercise the sovereign and absolute right of treating the recommendations of Congress with contempt.

From that time to the present, we have seen the great Federal Head of our union cloathed with the authority of making treaties without the power of performing them; of contracting debts without being able to discharge them, or to bind others to discharge them; of regulating our trade, and providing for the general welfare of the people, in their concerns with foreign nations, without the power of restraining a single individual from the infraction of their orders, or restricting any trade, however injurious to the public welfare.

To remedy these evils, some have weakly imagined that it is necessary to annihilate the several States, and vest Congress with the absolute direction and government of the continent, as one single republic.

This, however, would be impracticable and mischievous.

In so extensive a country many local and internal regulations would be required, which Congress could not possibly attend to, and to which the States individually are fully competent; but those things which alike concern all the States, such as our foreign trade and foreign transactions, Congress should be fully authorised to regulate, and should be invested with the power of enforcing their regulations.


The ocean, which joins us to other nations, would seem to be the scene upon which Congress might exert its authority with the greatest benefit to the United States, as no one State can possibly claim any exclusive right in it.

It has been long seen that the States individually cannot, with any success, pretend to regulate trade.

The duties and restrictions which one State imposes, the neighbouring States enable the merchants to elude; and besides, if they could be enforced, it would be highly unjust, that the duties collected in the port of one State should be applied to the sole use of that State in which they are collected, whilst the neighbouring States, who have no ports for foreign commerce, consume a part of the goods imported, and thus in effect pay a part of the duties.

Even if the recommendation of Congress has been attended to, which proposed the levying for the use of Congress five per centum on goods imported, to be collected by officers to be appointed by the individual States, it is more than probable that the laws would have been feebly executed.

Men are not apt to be sufficiently attentive to the business of those who do not appoint, and cannot remove or controul them; officers would naturally look up to the State which appointed them, and it is past a doubt that some of the States would esteem it no unpardonable sin to promote their own particular interest, or even that of particular men, to the injury of the United States.

Would it not then be right to vest Congress with the sole and exclusive power of regulating trade, of imposing port duties, of appointing officers to collect these duties, of erecting ports and deciding all questions by their own authority, which concern foreign trade and navigations upon the high seas?

Some of those persons, who have conceived a narrow jealousy of Congress, and therefore have unhappily obstructed their exertions for the public welfare, may perhaps be startled at the idea, and make objections.

To such I would answer, that our situation appears to be sufficiently desperate to justify the hazarding an experiment of any thing which promises immediate relief.

Let us try this for a few years; and if we find it attended with mischief, we can refuse to renew the power.

But it appears to me to be necessary and useful; and I cannot think that it would in the least degree endanger our liberties.

The representatives of the States in Congress are easily changed as often as we please, and they must necessarily be changed often.

They would have little inclination and less ability to enterprise against the liberties of their constituents.


This, no doubt, would induce the necessity of employing a small number of armed vessels to enforce the regulations of Congress, and would be the beginning of a Continental Navy;—but a navy was never esteemed, like a standing army, dangerous to the liberty of the people.

To those who should object that this is too small a power to grant to Congress; that many more are necessary to be added to those which they already possess, I can only say, that perhaps they have not sufficiently reflected upon the great importance of the power proposed.

That it would be of immense service to the country I have no doubt, as it is the only means by which our trade can be put on a footing with other nations; that it would in the event greatly strengthen the hands of Congress, I think is highly probable.

https://teachingamericanhistory.org/lib ... s-journal/
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA

Post by thelivyjr »

Philadelphiensis II

Philadelphiensis

November 28, 1787

My Fellow-Citizens, The present time will probably form a new epoch in the annals of America.

This important, this awful crisis bids fair to be the theme of our posterity for many generations.

We are now publicly summoned to determine whether we and our children are to be freemen or slaves; whether the liberty, which we have so recently purchased with the blood of thousands of our fellow countrymen, is to terminate in a blessing or a curse.


The establishment of a new government is a matter of such immense magnitude, that any other human transaction is small indeed when compared to it.

Great circumspection is therefore necessary on this interesting occasion: the temporal, and in some measure the eternal happiness of millions of souls is involved in this important work: I say even in some measure our eternal happiness is concerned; for, that a good or a bad government naturally influences religion and morality, is a principle indisputably confirmed by fact.

Under a free and patriotic government, the bulk of the people will necessarily be virtuous: but under a tyrannical and unjust one, the greater part of the people will as necessarily be wicked: the complexion of the governing is ever the colour of the governed.

TO BE CONTINUED ...
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA

Post by thelivyjr »

Philadelphiensis II, continued ...

Philadelphiensis

November 28, 1787

Every freeman possessed of the smallest portion of patriotism and general philanthropy, ought, at this critical juncture, to think seriously, to deliberate coolly, and to determine cautiously.

All that is dear to him, nay all that constitutes life itself happy or miserable, is at this very moment about to be unalterably fixed: the rivet of tyranny may now be clenched, that will bind forever the freedom of America in the indissoluble chains of cursed slavery.


In the adoption of the new constitution in its present form, we will lose more than all that we have fought for, and gained in a glorious and successful war of seven years; yea, and still more than this, our very character of citizens and freemen will be changed to that of subjects and slaves.

In this act the bright orb of glorious liberty will go down under the horizon of cruel oppression, never never to illuminate our western hemisphere again!

How much better, that she had never cast a ray upon Columbia, than thus to blaze for a moment, and then to vanish forever!

In regard to religious liberty, the cruelty of the new government will probably be felt sooner in Pennsylvania than in any state in the union.

The number of religious denominations in this state, who are principled against fighting or bearing arms, will be greatly distressed indeed.

In the new constitution there is no declaration in their favour; but on the contrary, the Congress and President are to have an absolute power over the standing army, navy, and militia; and the president, or rather emperor, is to be commander in chief.

Now, I think, that it will appear plain, that no exemption whatever from militia duty, shall be allowed to any set of men, however conscientiously scrupulous they may be against bearing arms.

Indeed, from the nature and qualifications of the president, we may justly infer, that such an idea is altogether preposterous: he is by profession a military man, and possibly an old soldier; now, such a man, from his natural temper, necessarily despises those who have a conscientious aversion to a military profession, which is probably the very thing in which he principally piques himself.

Only men of his own kind will be esteemed by him; his fellow soldier he will conceive to be his true friend, and the only character worthy of his notice and confidence.

TO BE CONTINUED ...
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA

Post by thelivyjr »

Philadelphiensis II, continued ...

Philadelphiensis

November 28, 1787

Since, in the new constitution no provision is made for securing to these peaceable citizens their religious liberties, it follows then by implication, that no such provision was intended.

Their influence in the state of Pennsylvania is fully sufficient to save them from suffering very materially on this account; but in the great vortex of the whole continent, it can have no weight.

How can we expect that a special law will be made by the new Congress merely on their account; and yet it will be absolutely necessary that such a law shall be made, before this privilege is secured to them?

Can any man rationally suppose that the president will give his assent to a law in favor of the men whom he heartily despises; a law also, that in its operation must curtail his own dignity and splender, by reducing the number of his military?

No certainly.

There is not probably military man on earth that could bear the thought.

So that such a supposition is absurd.

The friends of this scheme of government may possibly attempt to say, that this religious liberty is sufficiently secured by the constitution of the state.

But I say not; for, this is a case in which the United States are a party, and every case of this kind, according to the new plan, must be determined by the supreme law of the land; that is, by the Congress and president, who are to have the sole direction of the militia.

This will be a matter then, in which a particular state can have no concern.

From the proceedings of the convention, respecting liberty of conscience, foreign politicians might be led to draw a strange conclusion, viz. that the majority of that assembly were either men of no religion, or all of one religion; such a conclusion naturally follows their silence on that subject; they must either have been indifferent about religion, or determined to compel the whole continent to conform to their own.

For my own part, I really think, that their conduct in this instance is inexplicable: it is impossible to divine what might have been their intentions.

Before I dismiss this subject, I cannot help taking notice of the inconsistency of some Pennsylvanians, in respect to this new government.

The very men, who should oppose it with all their influence, seem to be the most zealous for establishing it.

Strange indeed! that the professed enemies of negro and every other species of slavery, should themselves join in the adoption of a constitution whose very basis is despotism and slavery, a constitution that militates so far against freedom, that even their own religious liberty may probably be destroyed by it.

Alas! what frail, what inconsistent beings we are!

To the catalogue of human weaknesses and mistakes, this is one to be added.


TO BE CONTINUED ...
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA

Post by thelivyjr »

Philadelphiensis II, continued ...

Philadelphiensis

November 28, 1787

Ah! my countrymen, our situation is critical indeed!

Let us make a solemn pause then!

The eyes of the world are upon us; the patriots and friends of America, in Europe, are now anxiously concerned, lest the whirlwind of tyranny should raze from its tender root the hallowed plant of Columbian liberty.

Before we confirm this new constitution, let us ask ourselves this question - For what did we withdraw our allegiance from Great Britain; was it because the yoke of George the third was not sufficiently galling, that we cast it off at the expence of so much blood and treasure, in order to accommodate ourselves with one of our own construction more intolerable?

Or, was it because the tyrant was three thousand miles off, that we revolted, in order to appoint one at home, who should correct us with scorpions instead of whips?

If this were your design, I congratulate you on your success; hesitate not a moment then in the adoption of the new constitution: It is a perfect model, and answers your intentions completely.

It certainly is capable of carrying tyranny and despotism to their ne plus ultra, no second revolution will be necessary, no further attempt need be made on this head; for this government will answer the end proposed to all intents and purposes.

Are these groundless conjectures, mere declamations unsupported by evidence, or affirmations without proof?

No truly!

Read the Old Whig, read the Centinels, read Brutus, Cincinnatus, &c. and then say, if you can, that these things are not real.

Perhaps better arguments were never advanced in the demonstration of any truth, than these writers have given to illustrate this matter; whilst the writers on the opposite side have not been able to refute them in a single instance.

I shall close this essay with one observation, viz. that should this despotic scheme of government be overthrown, (which God grant) to what cause then are we to attribute this glorious triumph?

The answer is obvious - to that palladium of liberty, that inestimable privilege of freemen, that scourge of tyranny, the freedom of the press.

https://teachingamericanhistory.org/lib ... iensis-ii/
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA

Post by thelivyjr »

An Old Whig VII

November 28, 1787

Many people seem to be convinced that the proposed Constitution is liable to a number of important objections; that there are defects in it which ought to be supplied, and errors which ought to be amended, but present form, or be left without any continental government whatsoever.

To be sure, if this were the case, it would be most prudent for us, like a man who is wedded to a bad wife, to submit to our misfortune with patience, and make the best of a bad bargain.

But if we will summon up resolution sufficient to examine into our true circumstances, we shall find that we are not in so deplorable a situation as people have been taught to believe, from the suggestions of interested men, who wish to force down the proposed plan of government without delay, for the purpose of providing offices for themselves and their friends.

We shall find that, with a little wisdom and patience, we have it yet in our power not only to establish a federal constitution but to establish a good one.


It is true that the continental convention has directed their proposed Constitution to be laid before a convention of delegates to be chosen in each state, “for their assent and ratification,” which seems to preclude the idea of any power in the several conventions of proposing any alterations, or indeed of even rejecting the plan proposed if they should disapprove of it.

Still, however, the question recurs, what authority the late convention had to bind the people of the United States to any particular form of government, or to forbid them to adopt such form of government as they should think fit.

I know it is a language frequent in the mouths of some heaven-born PHAETONS amongst us, who like the son of Apollo, think themselves entitled to guide the chariot of the sun, that common people have no right to judge of the affairs of government, that they are not fit for it, that they should leave these matters to their superiors.

This, however, is not the language of men of real understanding, even among the advocates for the proposed Constitution; but these still recognize the authority of the people, and will admit, at least in words, that the people have a right to be consulted.


Then I ask, if the people in the different states have a right to be consulted, in the new form of continental government, what authority could the late convention have to preclude them from proposing amendments to the plan they should offer?

Had the convention any right to bind the people to the form of government they should propose?

Let us consider the matter.

The late convention were chosen by the general assembly of each state.

They had the sanction of Congress.

For what?

To consider what alterations were necessary to be made in the Articles of Confederation.


What have they done?

They have made a new constitution for the United States.

I will not say, that in doing so, they have exceeded their authority; but on the other hand, I trust that no man of understanding among them will pretend to say that anything they did or could do was of the least avail to lessen the rights of the people to judge for themselves in the last resort.

This right is perhaps unalienable, but at all events there is no pretense for saying that this right was ever meant to be surrendered up into the hands of the late continental convention.

TO BE CONTINUED ...
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA

Post by thelivyjr »

An Old Whig VII, continued ...

November 28, 1787

The people have an undoubted right to judge of every part of the government which is offered to them.

No power on earth has a right to preclude them, and they may exercise this choice either by themselves or their delegates legally chosen to represent them in this state convention.

I venture to say that no man, reasoning upon revoluation principles, can possibly controvert this right.

Indeed, very few go so far as to controvert the right of the people to propose amendments.

But we are told that the thing is impracticable, that if we begin to propose amendments there will be no end to them, that the several states will never agree in their amendments, that we shall never unite in any plan; that if we reject this we shall either have a worse or none at all, that we ought therefore to adopt this at once without alteration or amendment.

Now these are very kind gentlemen, who insist upon doing so much good for us, whether we will or not.

Idiots and maniacs ought certainly to be restrained from doing themselves mischief, and should be compelled to that which is for their own good.

Whether the people of America are to be considered in this light and treated accordingly is a question which deserves, perhaps, more consideration then it has received.


A contest between the patients and their doctors, which are mad or which are fools, might possibly be a very unhappy one.

I hope at least that we shall be able to settle this important business without so preposterous a dispute.

What then would you have us to do, may it be asked?

Would you have us adopt the proposed Constitution or reject it?

I answer that I would neither whish the one nor the other.

Though I would be far from pretending to dictate to the representatives of the people what steps ought to be pursued, yet a method seems to present itself so simple, so perfectly calculated to obviate all difficulties, to reconcile us with another.

And establish unanimity and harmony among the people of this country, that I cannot forbear to suggest it.

I hope that most of my readers have already anticipated me in what I am about to propose.

Whether they have or not, I shall venture to state it, in the humble expectations that it may have some tendency to reconcile honest men of all parties with one another.

TO BE CONTINUED ...
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA

Post by thelivyjr »

An Old Whig VII, continued ...

November 28, 1787

The method I would propose is this:

First, let the Conventions of each state, as they meet, after considering the proposed Constitution, state their objections and propose their amendments.

So far from these objections and amendments clashing with each other in irreconcilable discord, as it has been too often suggested they would do, it appears that from what has been hitherto published in the different states in opposition to the proposed Constitution, we have a right to expect that they will harmonize in a very great degree.

The reason I say so is that about the same time, in very different parts of the continent, the very same objections have been made, and the very same alterations proposed by different writers, who I verily believe, know nothing at all of each other, and were very far from acting a premeditated concert, and that others who have not appeared as writers in the newspapers, in the different states, have appeared to act and speak in perfect unison with those objections and amendments, particularly in the article of a Bill of Rights.

That in short, the very same sentiments seem to have been echoed from the different parts of the continent by the opposers of the proposed Constitution at present proposed, we might be disappointed of any federal government or receive a worse one than the present.

It would be a most delightful surprise in which we have been involved on this subject, we ever suffered ourselves to imagine.

TO BE CONTINUED ...
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA

Post by thelivyjr »

An Old Whig VII, concluded ...

November 28, 1787

Second, when the conventions have stated these objections and amendments, let them transmit them to Congress and adjourn, praying that Congress will direct another convention to be called from the different states, to consider of these objections and amendments, and pledging themselves to abide by whatever decision shall be made by such future Convention on the subject, whether it be to amend the proposed Constitution or to reject any alteration and ratify it as it stands.

Third, if a new convention of the United States should meet, and revise the proposed Constitution, let us agree to abide by their decision.

It is past a doubt that every good citizen of American pants for an efficient federal government.

I have no doubt we shall concur at last in some plan of continental government, even if so many people could imagine exceptions to it; but if the exceptions which are made at present, shall be maturely considered and even be pronounced by our future representatives as of no importance, (which I trust they will not) even in that case, I have no doubt that almost every man will give up his own private opinion and concur in that decision.

Fourth, if by any means another Continental Convention should fail to meet, then let the conventions of the several states again assemble and at last decide the great solemn question whether we shall adopt the Constitution now proposed, or reject it.

And, whenever it becomes necessary to decide upon this point, one at least who from the beginning has been invariably anxious for the liberty and independence of his country, will concur in adopting and supporting this Constitution, rather than none; though I confess I could easily imagine, some other form of confederation.

Which I should think better entitled to my hearty approbation, and indeed I am not afraid of a worse.

https://teachingamericanhistory.org/lib ... -whig-vii/
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA

Post by thelivyjr »

A Federal Republican: A Review of the Constitution

November 28, 1787

FRIENDS and FELLOW-COUNTRYMEN; When any nation is about to make a change in its political character, it highly behoves it to summon the experience of ages that have past, to collect the wisdom of the present day, and ascertain clearly those just principles of equal government, that are adapted to secure inviolably the lives, the liberties, and the property of the people.

In such a situation are these United States at the present moment.


They are now called to announce the Alpha or the Omega of their political existence, to lay a deep foundation for their national character, and to leave a legacy of happiness or misery to their children’s children.

The Constitution recommended to the consideration of the United States, is a subject of general discussion; and, while it involves in its fate the interest of so extensive a country, every sentiment that can be offered upon it, deserves its proportion of the public attention.

It is worth our while, before we make any observations on the Constitution, as it stands recommended, to recur to the motives which gave rise to the calling of a Convention.

We were taught by sad experience, the defect of the present articles of confederation, and wisely determined to alter and amend them.


At the framing of the present confederation, the bond of union among the States, which arose from a community of danger, in some measure superseded the necessity of wisdom.

A common interest excited us to unite our exertions for the public good.

TO BE CONTINUED ...
Post Reply