Zam18th, perhaps this conversation should begin by setting the stage for the convention.

A discussion of incidents that demonstrated the failures of the Articles of Confederation as they were perceived by the founders would be good start, IMO.

Great idea.  We need some context.



We had money/taxation problems, Shays rebellion, interstate commerce problems.  What else was there?  Anyone want to expand on those?  





 

Tag

the conterfieting of state currencies was a big problem.

Laziness (Wikipedia)

Context of Constitutional Convention: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Convention_(United_States)#Historical_context

Before the Constitution was drafted, the nearly 4 million inhabitants of the 13 newly independent states were governed under the Articles of Confederation, created by the Second Continental Congress. It soon became evident to nearly all that the chronically underfunded Confederation government, as originally organized, was inadequate for managing the various conflicts that arose among the states. As the Articles of Confederation could only be amended by unanimous vote of the states, any state had effective veto power over any proposed change. In addition, the Articles gave the weak federal government no taxing power: it was wholly dependent on the states for its money, and had no power to force delinquent states to pay.

Once the immediate task of winning the American Revolutionary War had passed, the states began to look to their own interests, and disputes arose. These included a dispute between Maryland and Virginia over the Potomac River and opposition to Rhode Island's imposing taxes on all traffic passing through it on the post road that linked all the states. James Madison suggested that state governments should appoint commissioners "to take into consideration the trade of the United States; to examine the relative situation and trade of said states; to consider how far a uniform system in their commercial regulations may be necessary to their common interests and permanent harmony".

In September 1786, at the Annapolis Convention, delegates from five states called for a constitutional convention in order to discuss possible improvements to the Articles of Confederation. The Constitutional convention took place in Philadelphia on May 14, 1787. Rhode Island, fearing that the Convention would work to its disadvantage, boycotted the Convention and, when the Constitution was put to the states, initially refused to ratify it.
(footnotes deleted)


Articles Of Confederation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Articles_of_Confederation

The Articles of Confederation was unanimously adopted in 1781 once Maryland agreed. Over the previous four years, it had been used by Congress as a “working document” to administer the early United States government, win the Revolutionary War and secure the Treaty of Paris (1783) with Great Britain. Lasting successes during its life prior to the Constitutional Convention included the Land Ordinance of 1785 whereby Congress promised settlers west of the Appalachian Mountains full citizenship and eventual statehood. Some historians characterize this period from 1781 to 1789 as weakness, dissension, and turmoil. Other scholars view the evidence as reflecting an underlying stability and prosperity. But signs of returning prosperity in some areas did not slow growing domestic and foreign problems. Nationalists saw that the confederation's central government was not strong enough to establish a sound financial system, regulate trade, enforce treaties, or go to war when needed.
The Congress was the sole organ of the national government, without a national court to interpret law nor an executive branch to enforce them, in the states or on individuals. Governmental functions, including declarations of war and calls for an army, were supported in some degree for some time, by each state voluntarily, or not . These newly independent states separated from Britain no longer received favored treatment at British ports. The British refused to negotiate a commercial treaty in 1785 because the individual American states would not be bound by it. Congress could not act directly upon the States nor upon individuals. It had no authority to regulate foreign or interstate commerce. Every act of government was left to the individual States. Each state levied taxes and tariffs on other states at will, which invited retaliation. Congress could vote itself mediator and judge in state disputes, but states did not have to accept its decisions.

The weak central government could not back its policies with military strength, embarrassing it in foreign affairs. The British refused to withdraw their troops from the forts and trading posts in the new nation's Northwest Territory, as they had agreed to do in the Treaty of Paris of 1783. British officers on the northern boundaries and Spanish officers to the south supplied arms to Native American tribes, allowing them to attack American settlers. The Spanish refused to allow western American farmers to use their port of New Orleans to ship produce.

Revenues were requisitioned by Congressional petition to each state. None paid what they were asked. Some funded only enough to pay interest to their own citizens. Connecticut declared it would not pay at all, not just for one year, but two. Congress appealed to the thirteen states for an amendment to the Articles to tax enough to pay the public debt as principle came due. Twelve states agreed, Rhode Island did not, so it failed. The Articles required super majorities. Amendment proposals to states required ratification by all thirteen states, all important legislation needed 70% approval, at least nine states. Repeatedly, one or two states defeated legislative proposals of major importance.

Without taxes the government could not pay its debt. Seven of the thirteen states printed large quantities of its own paper money, backed by gold, land, or nothing, so there was no fair exchange rate among them. State courts required state creditors to accept payments at face value with a fraction of real purchase power. The same legislation that these states used to wipe out the Revolutionary debt to patriots was used to pay off promised veteran pensions. The measures were popular because they helped both small farmers and plantation owners pay off their debts.

The Massachusetts legislature was one of the five against paper money. It imposed a tightly limited currency and high taxes. Without paper money veterans without cash lost their farms at sheriff’s auction for back taxes. This triggered Shays Rebellion to stop tax collectors and close the courts until the proceedings were dropped. Troops quickly suppressed the rebellion, but nationalists like George Washington warned, "There are combustibles in every state which a spark might set fire to."
(footnotes deleted)

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


Letter of James Madison to George Washington, April 16, 1787: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch8s6.html

I have been honoured with your letter of the 31 of March, and find with much pleasure that your views of the reform which ought to be pursued by the Convention, give a sanction to those which I have entertained. Temporising applications will dishonor the Councils which propose them, and may foment the internal malignity of the disease, at the same time that they produce an ostensible palliation of it. Radical attempts, although unsuccessful, will at least justify the authors of them.

Having been lately led to revolve the subject which is to undergo the discussion of the Convention, and formed in my mind some outlines of a new system, I take the liberty of submitting them without apology, to your eye.

Conceiving that an individual independence of the States is utterly irreconcileable with their aggregate sovereignty; and that a consolidation of the whole into one simple republic would be as inexpedient as it is unattainable, I have sought for some middle ground, which may at once support a due supremacy of the national authority, and not exclude the local authorities wherever they can be subordinately useful.

I would propose as the ground-work that a change be made in the principle of representation. According to the present form of the Union in which the intervention of the States is in all great cases necessary to effectuate the measures of Congress, an equality of suffrage, does not destroy the inequality of importance, in the several members. No one will deny that Virginia and Massts. have more weight and influence both within & without Congress than Delaware or Rho. Island. Under a system which would operate in many essential points without the intervention of the State legislatures, the case would be materially altered. A vote in the national Councils from Delaware, would then have the same effect and value as one from the largest State in the Union. I am ready to believe that such a change would not be attended with much difficulty. A majority of the States, and those of greatest influence, will regard it as favorable to them. To the Northern States it will be recommended by their present populousness; to the Southern by their expected advantage in this respect. The lesser States must in every event yield to the predominant will. But the consideration which particularly urges a change in the representation is that it will obviate the principal objections of the larger States to the necessary concessions of power.

I would propose next that in addition to the present federal powers, the national Government should be armed with positive and compleat authority in all cases which require uniformity; such as the regulation of trade, including the right of taxing both exports & imports, the fixing the terms and forms of naturalization, &c &c.

Over and above this positive power, a negative in all cases whatsoever on the legislative acts of the States, as heretofore exercised by the Kingly prerogative, appears to me to be absolutely necessary, and to be the least possible encroachment on the State jurisdictions. Without this defensive power, every positive power that can be given on paper will be evaded & defeated. The States will continue to invade the national jurisdiction, to violate treaties and the law of nations & to harrass each other with rival and spiteful measures dictated by mistaken views of interest. Another happy effect of this prerogative would be its controul on the internal vicisitudes of State policy; and the aggressions of interested majorities on the rights of minorities and of individuals. The great desideratum which has not yet been found for Republican Governments, seems to be some disinterested & dispassionate umpire in disputes between different passions & interests in the State. The majority who alone have the right of decision, have frequently an interest real or supposed in abusing it. In Monarchies the sovereign is more neutral to the interests and views of different parties; but unfortunately he too often forms interests of his own repugnant to those of the whole. Might not the national prerogative here suggested be found sufficiently disinterested for the decision of local questions of policy, whilst it would itself be sufficiently restrained from the pursuit of interests adverse to those of the whole Society? There has not been any moment since the peace at which the representatives of the union would have given an assent to paper money or any other measure of a kindred nature.

The national supremacy ought also to be extended as I conceive to the Judiciary departments. If those who are to expound & apply the laws, are connected by their interests & their oaths with the particular States wholly, and not with the Union, the participation of the Union in the making of the laws may be possibly rendered unavailing. It seems at least necessary that the oaths of the Judges should include a fidelity to the general as well as local constitution, and that an appeal should lie to some national tribunals in all cases to which foreigners or inhabitants of other States may be parties. The admiralty jurisdiction seems to fall entirely within the purview of the national Government.

The national supremacy in the Executive departments is liable to some difficulty, unless the officers administering them could be made appointable by the supreme Government. The Militia ought certainly to be placed in some form or other under the authority which is entrusted with the general protection and defence.

A Government composed of such extensive powers should be well organized and balanced. The Legislative department might be divided into two branches; one of them chosen every years by the people at large, or by the legislatures; the other to consist of fewer members, to hold their places for a longer term, and to go out in such a rotation as always to leave in office a large majority of old members. Perhaps the negative on the laws might be most conveniently exercised by this branch. As a further check, a council of revision including the great ministerial officers might be superadded.

A national Executive must also be provided. I have scarcely ventured as yet to form my own opinion either of the manner in which it ought to be constituted or of the authorities with which it ought to be cloathed.

An article should be inserted expressly guarantying the tranquillity of the States against internal as well as external dangers.

In like manner the right of coercion should be expressly declared. With the resources of Commerce in hand, the national administration might always find means of exerting it either by sea or land; But the difficulty & awkwardness of operating by force on the collective will of a State, render it particularly desirable that the necessity of it might be precluded. Perhaps the negative on the laws might create such a mutuality of dependence between the General and particular authorities, as to answer this purpose. Or perhaps some defined objects of taxation might be submitted along with commerce, to the general authority.

To give a new System its proper validity and energy, a ratification must be obtained from the people, and not merely from the ordinary authority of the Legislatures. This will be the more essential as inroads on the existing Constitutions of the States will be unavoidable.

I can't lie, I was going to use wiki if no one else did.  



That's some good stuff, they have come a long way.

This is an interesting paragraph  



 

Tag

Nice

Welcome aboard, gentlemen.  Let's get this thing rolling.  



 

sigp226 - thanks for pulling that info in; very good read.

Discussion on Federalist Nos. 1 & 2 plus Anti-Federalist Nos. 1 & 2 still kicking off tomorrow as planned?

Sure is, we've got a schedule to keep.  
 

One other thing I think important is a paragraph by Ralph Ketcham from my Anti-Federalist Papers book, The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates. (ISBN 0-451-62525-0)



The flaw in this is the belief that politicians will not lie and blow smoke up the asses of voters, but I think that can be dismissed. The founders were familiar with government dissimulation. The Declaration Of Independence lists examples of it by the Crown. http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/doi/text.html They were hoping for the best and their attempts to limit power and require periodic elections were meant to address the worst.

Franklin's speech on the Consitiution, Z's response





I agree with Z, but I did like this part of Franklin's speech










Z sure nailed this...

 

Reading through the reading for this week right now.  I'll save any actual discussion until tomorrow, but I will say this:

Hamilton was the master of left handed compliments.  If he'd been an Arfcommer, his ability to skirt the CoC while calling people retarded would have been a thing of beauty.  

I was thinking the same thing.  
Also, you guys, feel free to post about the reading while it is fresh in your mind.  I'm no stickler, I figure the discussions will probably overlap anyway.





I'm thinking that if I read further ahead, I may take some notes or look for some sort of highlighting browser add on.  




 
 

Nothing in particular stuck out to me after reading Federalist No. 1. It seems generally introductory and emphasizes the importance of the decision facing the nation.

Jay's focus in Federalist No. 2 seems to be unity; "[i]t has until lately been a received and uncontradicted opinion that the prosperity of the people of America depended on their continuing firmly united . . ."  His overall point seems to be that a body of states unified under a federal government will advance American prosperity and national interests better than a loose confederacy of states would.

Still working through Anti-Federlist Nos. 1 & 2. Eager to see what others have to say.

Fed 1 and 2, and Anti Fed 1 and 2 seem to be primarily concerned with the creation of boogey-men. I know of no serious debate to split the country into separate confederacies. If there was one, please enlighten me. I searched "animosity between Maryland and Virginia" which led to a thread on city data. It was a bunch of liberals spewing liberalities, mostly about gay marriage and smoking pot. One person noted with pride that soon Marylanders will be able to get high and fuck each other in the ass and that is the foundation of good government.

Another person pointed to the difference between the two state constitutions as the reason for the modern animosity. I looked up the originals.

1776 Virginia Constitution: http://vagovernmentmatters.org/archive/files/vaconstitution1776_0366e939fc.pdf

1776 Maryland Constitution:
http://aomol.msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc4800/sc4872/003145/html/m3145-0195.html

Note that neither of them mention the right to keep and bear arms. This interests me as it was written after Shay's Rebellion. The people who wrote the Second Amendment understood what arms might do in the hands of the people. They must have known that neither of these constitutions included it. Certainly the delegates from Maryland and Virginia knew it.

Articles Of Confederation (html): http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/education/articlesofconfederation.html

Well put.

This drew a





Fed 1




I think Hamilton talked himself in a circle.  He says that we need a vigorous government to protect our liberty.  Then he says that despotism is most likely to come from people who claim to want to protect liberty.  

Specious means a false appearance of truth, so he is insulting his opponents.

You're right.  And forbidden seems to mean disliked.  So he's saying in that line that the threat is more likely to be from someone pretending to love liberty than from someone who unpopularly and openly supports government, to that end.  





IMO, he is still deflating his own argument/insult.  But it is a wise observation that it doesn't make sense for someone with ulterior motives to claim an unpopular position.
 
 

I read it more simply - just as, "be careful of liars who pretend to support you," but I think yours is a better interpretation.

Thanks.  
I just wanted to make sure I got the intricacies in there because I've been thinking - Is what he wrote really true today?  I mean, it is generally good advice, but when you apply it specifically to politics in our time, I'm not so sure.  





Sure there are politicians that talk liberty and don't hold true after the election.  At the same time, how many talk about how they'll use government to enhance our 'rights' (gay rights, minimum wage, right to choose, welfare, healthcare...) and when they get into office they end up bloating government, enriching themselves, protecting their jobs, etc.  





If you look at it that way, yours is the better interpretation and still holds true.  





I just found that paragraph pretty interesting.  




 
 

Jokes!

Thanks for doing this.  I had never heard of the anti-federalist papers.  Very interesting.  Granted i am on next weeks reading, but as I read the anti-federalist paper 3 and 4 it made me wonder.  Has government today turned into what Patrick Henry feared when he wrote the anti-federalist #4?

My pleasure.
 

I know more than 5 of us did some reading.  Pop in and give everyone a or a "week _ done" or something.  Plus you get to up your post count



I imagine group psychology plays a part in people staying motivated in this thread.  If people get the impression that others have stopped reading or following the thread, many will surely follow suit.  



Just an observation that could help make this thread successful.

Give it some time. People are feeling out the thread.

You're right.  I just wanted to get that post up in case some people on the fence were thinking of giving up on the thread.  





I don't want it to come off like I'm complaining or anything.  I'm more than happy with how it has gone so far.





 

In.

Time to start reading

That was Madison 1.0
He later "found religion" and sung a very different tune.
We all know someone (perhaps even ourselves) who evolved and matured in their political views.
Compare Madison as President to when he was trying to drum up support for the Constitution and you see two very different men.

(What is written there was even before the Philly Convention convened...)

Good point.  That reminds me a little of the Franklin quote earlier on this page.  I'm sure seeing Hamilton in action helped motivate him too.





I somewhat recall Madison moving into Jefferson's camp but my timeline is screwy.  Did his new views hold up even after the war?  
I need to find a good Madison biography to read before I delve into his papers.  Anyone have any recommendations?  
 
 

I don't know if there are any "great" Madison biographies, not in the vein of David McCullough or Harlow Giles Unger or Ron Chernow , but there are some "decent" ones.
I have read James Madison and the making of America by Kevin Gutzman and it was pretty good. Not as many citations as I would prefer. I like it when the last
quarter of the book is the foot notes and references!

Later reading.

Thanks.  Nothing seemed to stand out when I was browsing them, so I figured I'd ask.  





 

I'm behind on my reading.  

Got busy this weekend with a few "honey do" projects and teaching a class.  I'll chime in later this week on #3 and #4 when I catch up.  

Agreed, they offer the perspective of the founders who were not consumed with statism.

Laborious weekend kept me from reading yet.  Pathetic on my part.  I'll be on it soon!

No worries, guys.  When you're busy, you're busy.  



Like I said before, I figure it is more of a rough schedule anyway.  If anyone falls behind and has any comments on any previous reading, feel free to post.  

A good little highlighter that I found for firefox.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/prostetnic/



There are some others out there but they require you to log in or create an account for cloud storage.

Anti 3

Anti 3 makes for pretty good reading; lots of quote-worthy and thought provoking statements.

How many times over in history has this been proven:

"All human authority, however organized, must have confined limits, or insolence and oppression will prove the offspring of its grandeur, and the difficulty or rather impossibility of escape prevents resistance."

Well, I'm only a week behind.  I caught up on last week's (1&2) read.  Here are a few thoughts that come to mind.

Personal Attacks:

In both Fed #1 and Anti-Fed #1, the authors really seem to try to preemptively poison the other side with personal attacks worthy of today's progressives!  

Hamilton lays into the anti-federalists by questioning their motives and suggesting that those opposing a stronger central government are people who are putting short-sighted personal interests (financial or political) ahead of others under the name of "liberty."  He quips: "…a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government."  I would agree with this statement in general, where the object of that zeal "for the people" is to draw more power to a government official to administer "for the people" rather than for reduction in government power.  After calling into question all those who oppose him, he tries to recover from being seen as too black-and-white by saying (effectively) "well, of course that isn't true of all people..."  

On the other side, Anti-Fed #1 attempts to pre-empt Hamilton planting the seed of mistrust by flipping this and calling Hamilton on his personal attack, saying "they brand with infamy every man who is not as determined and zealous in its favor as themselves..."  The author then goes on to launch his counter-attack by branding the federalists as "nobles" consisting of bankers, lawyers, the rich and those desiring political power.  Class warfare at its finest!

This sort of rhetoric, it seems to me, would serve to solidify an antagonistic "us v. them" mentality right from the get-go of these publications.

Aristocracy v. Democracy:

De Tocqueville reflected quite a bit on the tension between more aristocratic forces and more democratic forces at work in America.  Of course, these writings were part of the basis for his own and it is interesting to see some of the work that led to his own interpretation.  Appeals to the "rights of the people" and labeling others as "nobles" (who theoretically want to advance themselves at the expense of serfs) goes right into this, but De Tocqueville also uses the terminology to differentiate those more favorably disposed to representative governors further removed from the people as opposed to more direct control by the electorate and writes of the dangers of making representatives too closely tied to the people and subject to popular will (tyranny of the majority).  The federalists would be the aristocrats, while antifederalists are more populist.  

Force v. Self-Government:

Along the same lines as the prior section, De Tocqueville wrote of the ideal of small government liberty as opposed to strong centralized government.  He notes the noble idea of small government liberty, but relays his view that the people will be happier giving up more liberty to live under a stronger government.  He asserts that due to fear of conquest or division and the necessity to rely on others, the citizens under liberty-oriented small government don't live as comfortably and happily as those living under stronger government; even while giving up some amount of liberty.  He also cites several European examples of federal systems in support of a position that a looser knit confederation will not achieve the same national greatness as a more unified power.  He also describes how drawing national power (and national identity) is done by actual or imaginary external threats to the Union.

I see some of the origins of this in these writings, and dissenting sentiments about what is the "better" outcome.  For example, in Anti-Fed 1, the author writes "I had rather be a free citizen of the small republic of Massachusetts, than an oppressed subject of the great American empire.”  In response to comments about the "weakness" of a looser confederation to deal with outside threats, the author of Anti-Fed 2 also poses the question of (effectively) "who threatens us such that we need a stronger centralized government to deal with it?"  He asks the same question about the need for a stronger internal government to put down internal strife that would split the union with an epic parade of horribles.  My favorite jab is the comment that the federalists would have you believe that without adopting their government, "Carolinians, from the south, (mounted on alligators, I presume,) are to come and destroy our cornfields, and eat up our little children!"  He is trying to combat the perceived fear mongering.  How that fear mongering continues today!  

In Fed 1, Hamilton speaks of the inefficacy of the Articles and our American experiment being whether people can self-govern, or whether they are doomed to be ruled by force.  I think I know what his intended meaning is, but I find the alternate read somewhat ironic - precisely what he is advocating for is an increase of power (force) being given to a central authority to rule the confederation.

Differing interpretation of effectiveness of Articles of Confederation:

Anti-Fed 2 seems to opine that the problems with the Articles of Confederation weren't structural, but were the result of the actions of the elected officials.  Compare this with Z’s response to Franklin, in which he says the new gov is flawed and we’re trying to count on good politicians to overcome flaws.  Seems like the same old problem!

Now, to try and catch up with this week's readings!

I agree.  Anti 3 was, by far, my favorite of the week.  Nothing definitive but it looks like the author was John Francis Mercer.  
 

Excellent post.









 

Caught up with 3&4, which I didn't find quite as wide-ranging as 1&2.  The focus here was squarely on debating the comparative benefits of a looser confederation and a stronger union as it pertains to security and foreign policy.  I will highlight several of the arguments/counter-arguments for the TL/DR crowd , along with a few thoughts.

Intra-state wars:

The Federalist briefly hints at disputes between and among the states potentially escalating to conflict.  Hamilton suggests that a stronger unification of the people under a single government would discourage intra-state strife.  I couldn't help but think of the concept of the EU and a single Euro currency and similar considerations.  The Anti-Federalist argument is quick to rebut that our states are much more alike than dissimilar even absent a central government.  It even nearly comes to pose the question of "would brother really fight against brother?"  It points to the flexibility of a confederation allowing states of differing opinion to live side by side and overcome their differences, while a strong union would seek instead to try and make all of the states uniform - a situation that could lead to greater propensity for states to resist and turn to fighting.  One can't help but think whether the Civil War would have happened had we continued with the Confederation rather than the stronger Union of the Federalists.  

Foreign policy difficulties:

The foreign policy considerations mostly relate to two things: (1) displaying an aura of strength and (2) acting as a unified front towards the rest of the world.

- Aura of Strength

The Federalist states that security is the most important venture of any free people and tries to paint a picture (to borrow the phraseology of Anti-Fed 4) of foreign powers laying in wait to seize upon our fledgling nation.  He names a number of other world powers who may become jealous of our increased commercial influence (to their detriment, he believes) worldwide, which would lead them to war upon us.  In Hamilton's mind a unified military and foreign policy would deter attacks and attempts at sabotage, both through a show of strength and through actual unified action.  

The Anti-Federalist concedes that a more centralized government will increase our clout abroad and our mark on history, but these things he calls vanity.  He suggests we be happy with our quiet peace, noting that we may not make as big a mark on history, but that "... the silence of historians is the surest record of the happiness of a people."  He cites Switzerland as a loose confederacy that has prospered and has not been subject to attack.  He describes the perceived absurdity of the Federalist's arguments as follows: "When gentlemen are thus driven to produce imaginary dangers, to induce this Convention to assent to this change, I am sure it will not be uncandid to say that the change itself is really dangerous."  He further asks, "[w]here is the danger? If, sir, there was any, I would recur to the American spirit to defend us; that spirit which has enabled us to surmount the greatest difficulties — to that illustrious spirit I address my most fervent prayer to prevent our adopting a system destructive to liberty."  A good plea to self-responsibility as opposed to a stronger government, it seems.

He then moves on to describing the counter-veiling interests of all of the foreign powers, which would lead them to avoid conflict with us (various trade, geographical and logistical counter-points).  He specifically opines that there may also be some benefits of a looser confederacy to deterrence.  For example: the lack of a central capital to sack and pillage would deter an attack - the multiplicity of states that would have to be conquered would deter and attack, etc.  To the point of engaging in wars with the Indians he dismisses the possibility as a non-issue because the US has grown much stronger than the Indian nations.  Some of these arguments are OK, but some aren't particularly persuasive.

- Unified Action

On the point of unified action, The Federalist posits that loosely confederated states might fracture on issues with some states deciding not to fight in common cause or even entering into separate treaties with foreign powers.  He asks, "If one [state] was attacked, would the others fly to its succor, and spend their blood and money in its defense?"  A good question.  Consider how hard it was to get the states to agree on revolution.  The Federalist also talks about the state governments as being imprudent and ready to charge into war over local matters (such as Indian incursions), which "local circumstances" would not affect the national government.  He predicts that starting such wars could have ramifications for the security of the whole union.  Therefore, a national government would help assure that this did not happen.  Of course, if the states are that imprudent I wonder how having a federal authority would discourage them from flying off the handle anyway?  By threat of Federal retaliation by force?  If the federal government is "not affected" by and responsive to the interests of its constituent states, is it a worthwhile endeavor?

The Anti-Federalist responds with the following thoughts: The confederation already ties the states together in foreign policy.  Majorities and super-majorities of states are required to approve treaties, etc.  He makes somewhat of a checks and balances argument – many states having to agree makes it harder to make bad decisions than one power making decisions.  He cites the rejection of the Jay-Gardoqui treaty, indicating that if we had one central government making the decision we may have given away the Mississippi River to Spain.  The need to build consensus amongst states ensures unity of thought on certain actions, while a federal government might go a direction that many more states oppose.

On the general prudence of decision-making:

While not really the focus of the argument, the overarching idea of what sort of government is more adept at making good decisions weaves throughout.  I found this the most interesting way to look at these passages.

The Federalist offers the following thought on the benefits of a unified government: "When once an efficient national government is established, the best men in the country will not only consent to serve, but also will generally be appointed to manage it.”  The Federal government would “…never experience that want of proper persons which is not uncommon in some of the States. Hence, it will result that the administration, the political counsels, and the judicial decisions of the national government will be more wise, systematical, and judicious than those of individual States, and consequently more satisfactory with respect to other nations, as well as more safe with respect to us.”  He goes on to consider that central government is more efficient in drawing together talented persons from across the country.  Hamilton is pretty optimistic about politicians and those seeking the seats of government power!

The Anti-Federalist offers an opposing viewpoint.  He believes that diffusion of powers reduces the potential for corruptibility systematically.  Rather than relying on "the best men" to wield power, one can rest assured that no one area has enough unified power to cause too much mischief.  With centralized power, there is greater propensity for harm.  He offers this quote: "If the body of the people will not govern themselves, and govern themselves well too, the consequence is unavoidable — a FEW will, and must govern them. Then it is that government becomes truly a government by force only, where men relinquish part of their natural rights to secure the rest..."

Thanks for starting the thread.

Fed 5
Basically it asserts that if the states arent unified that wars will errupt among the states as individuals and state commerical interests compete. It warns that if there is no arbiter, monopolies and cabals and foriegn interets will lead to tyranny and institutional graft and wars.

FED 6

On the same subject, Goes on to discuss the western lands wich hadnt been distributed or conquered.  Hamilton asserts that if the states werent unified they would fight over those lands and that foriegn powers would play us off against one another to mutual distruction in frontier wars with indians and amongst ourselves.

Anti-Fed 5 & 6
States that scottland was worse served by joining with england, that if such a central legislature were established here it would be easier to put under thumb than the various governments of the states, and that Hamilton was fear mongering and that he was backed by designing men who seek to place a yoke of centralized despotism on the people by scaring them with the spectre of anarchy and war.

Hamilton sure could prattle on.