The History Book Club discussion

This is the thread for the discussion of FEDERALIST. NO 20.

This paper is titled THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE PRESENT CONFEDERATION TO PRESERVE THE UNION (CONT'D) .

This paper was written by James Madison with Alexander Hamilton.

by Alexander Hamilton

Hello Folks,

We will be continuing with the next paper of the Federalist Papers - Federalist No. 20.

FEDERALIST No. 20 The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union - Cont'd (Written by James Madison with Alexander Hamilton)

Check back and more information will be added for this discussion. If you are catching up, that is no problem; we have a thread dedicated to each paper so you can catch up when you are able.

Bentley

We find ourselves on the following paper: (beginning February 14, 2011)

FEDERALIST No. 20 The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union - Cont'd (Madison with Hamilton)
February 14, 2011 - February 20 (page 129)

Links to 20:

http://federali.st/20

You can also listen to them being read orally to you:

Federalist 20 audio:

A much better oral reading:

http://michaelscherervoice.com/the-fe...

Source: Michael Scherer

How To Get the Most Out of Your Reading:

May I also suggest that you bring up the on line text version of the paper you are reading (in this case Federalist Paper 20) or open to it in your book and then start the Michael Scherer audio; it does have more power when a strong voice is reading the paper and you will get more out of it reading along while listening to it.

Summary:

Federalist No. 20 is an essay by James Madison, the twentieth of the Federalist Papers. It was published on December 11, 1787 under the pseudonym Publius, the name under which all the Federalist Papers were published. No. 20 addresses the failures of the Articles of Confederation to satisfactorily govern the United States; it is the last of six essays on this topic. It is titled, "The Same Subject Continued: The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union."

Tell me if you have read Federalist Paper 20 and please quote the sentence, sentences, paragraph that you like the best or which moved or impressed you the most.

Please discuss why you made that selection and what you liked about it or why it stood out.

Let us try to discuss the Federalist Papers specifically in this discussion; it really is not a political discussion; it really is an examination of the papers themselves. Of course, policy and politics may come up and things we are doing now versus what the papers stated; but the focus is always the papers first and politics second not the other way around. In fact, all three of the authors of the papers changed their positions frequently.

Remember all = that in message three there is a link to an on line version that you can read easily, read along to the audio which I recommended you do, and you can also do a cut and paste of the sentence, sentences, paragraphs you liked and then do a paste into your post so that we can discuss what you liked and why.

Also, remember that once you have expressed your view; that others can post a dispute, an explanation, or an agreement. Everybody is entitled to their opinion but let us keep the discussions about the papers not about anyone's personal beliefs. You are not going to persuade someone to adopt your political beliefs here; so when somebody disagrees with you or has another point of view - that is OK - let it go. We are here to discuss the papers and get a lot out of the discussion not promote an ideology.

Keep discussion civil and respectful.

Here is an article published in Constituting America:

May 25, 2010 – Federalist No. 20 – The Same Subject Continued: The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union, from the New York Packet (Hamilton & Madison) – Guest Blogger: William C. Duncan, director of the Marriage Law Foundation

Federalist 20 is one of a series of essays that discuss the governmental precedents of other nations as illustrations of some of the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation. In it, James Madison discusses the Netherlands, painting a picture of a weak government held together by a strong magistrate and the pressures created by hostile surrounding nations. Madison underscores the fact that the government has overstepped its constitutional bounds on occasion because those bounds do not allow it to meet emergencies.

A lesson here is that a weak and ineffectual government is a threat to liberty just as an overly strong and active government would be. He explains that the experience of the Netherlands demonstrates: “A weak constitution must necessarily terminate in dissolution for want of proper powers, or the usurpation of powers requisite for the public safety.” The implication for the United States Constitution is that it must create a government capable of meeting true emergencies and dealing forcefully with threats from other nations. The failure to do so not only could result in dissolution, but ironically, could lead to too strong a government: “Tyranny has perhaps oftener grown out of the assumptions of power, called for, on pressing exigencies, by a defective constitution, than out of the full exercise of the largest constitutional authorities.”

Madison attributes the weakness of the constitution of the Netherlands to “the calamities brought on mankind by their adverse opinions and selfish passions” and recommends that Americans “let our gratitude mingle an ejaculation to Heaven, for the propitious concord which has distinguished the consultations for our political happiness.”

In addition to evoking gratitude, there is another important lesson in Federalist 20 for current political debates.

In the Pennsylvania Convention, John Dickinson had taught: “Experience must be our only guide. Reason may mislead us.” At the end of Federalist 20, Madison explains why he has spent time describing the precedent of other nations in words that echo Dickinson’s: “Experience is the oracle of truth; and where its responses are unequivocal, they ought to be conclusive and sacred.”

An obvious application of this point is to the ongoing debate over whether our government should continue to press for greater and greater social controls. It would seem obvious that the unequivocal disaster of socialist and communist governments ought to warn us away from that precipice.

More generally we can heed the Framers’ example of willingness to learn from experience rather than to trust only in their unaided ability to reason out new solutions. Subtle thinking and cleverness have their place but must be disciplined by a willingness to learn lessons from human experience. One of the greatest strengths of the U.S. Constitution is its dual application of (1) the principles of self-government learned in the colonial experience and (2) the lessons of history derived from careful study and reflection.

Returning to a theme from the discussion of Federalist 17, there is a temptation to apply not experience, but ideology, to problems we face as a nation. Doing so appeals to a hubristic temperament. Some will always be dissatisfied if political reality is not made to conform to prefabricated theories even when doing so requires compulsion and control. In fact, the ability to control society may be the attraction of such theories; at least to some of their adherents.

The Framers eschewed easy answers and paid the price in experience, deliberation and study to create a secure foundation for our national government. That foundation incorporates the lessons of experience. Our response to current challenges must do the same.

Mr. Duncan is director of the Marriage Law Foundation (www.marriagelawfoundation.org). He formerly served as acting director of the Marriage Law Project at the Catholic University of America’s Columbus School of Law and as executive director of the Marriage and Family Law Research Grant at J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, where he was also a visiting professor

Discussion Topic:

What did folks make of the following quotation: (in other words what did it mean to you personally)

"Experience is the oracle of truth; and where its responses are unequivocal, they ought to be conclusive and sacred."

This is an interesting article within which it describes what occurred in the Pennsylvania delegation when they were voting to ratify the Constitution. I guess the Anti Federalists showed up and a riot ensued.

The election of delegates to represent Philadelphia in the State Convention to consider the constitution took place at the State House on Tuesday, November 6th. All went quietly during the day. But at midnight a crowd gathered, and a riot occurred before the now famous house of Mr. Alexander Boyd on Sixth street. The occasion of the riot was the presence in the house of the Anti-Federal Junto against whom the voters had been muttering threats all day. What happened was stated to the Assembly a few days later by one of the members insulted.

Source:

Teaching American History.org

Here is the link:

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ra...