January 11th– The Federalist Papers 1 and 2 by Alexander Hamilton and John Jay

 Probably not actually period appropriate music

ALEXANDER HAMILTON (and also John Jay)

Federalist 1 and 2

Summary: Hamilton and Jay each write an essay supporting the Constitution after the Articles of Confederation. Hamilton's is full of still intelligent political advise/commentary. Jay's is prettier, but either naïve or BS. Take your pick.

Commentary: I LOVE FEDERALIST 1! I think we read a couple small excerpts in social studies class, but nothing substantial. I wish we'd read more. Maybe it would've gone over my head at 15, but it's not that long and still resonates today. A few pull outs:

"The important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force." I think we're still more in the latter than the former, but I appreciate that he explicitly frames it as a an aspirational question.

Similarly, "unperplexed and unbiased by considerations not connected with the public good. But this is a thing more ardently to be wished than seriously to be expected."

I am well aware that it would be disingenuous to resolve indiscriminately the opposition of any set of men (merely because their situations might subject them to suspicion) into interested or ambitious views. Candor will oblige us to admit that even such men may be actuated by upright intentions; and it cannot be doubted that much of the opposition which has made its appearance, or may hereafter make its appearance, will spring from sources, blameless at least, if not respectable—the honest errors of minds led astray by preconceived jealousies and fears.

So numerous indeed and so powerful are the causes which serve to give a false bias to the judgment, that we, upon many occasions, see wise and good men on the wrong as well as on the right side of questions of the first magnitude to society. This circumstance, if duly attended to, would furnish a lesson of moderation to those who are ever so much persuaded of their being in the right in any controversy. And a further reason for caution, in this respect, might be drawn from the reflection that we are not always sure that those who advocate the truth are influenced by purer principles than their antagonists. Ambition, avarice, personal animosity, party opposition, and many other motives not more laudable than these, are apt to operate as well upon those who support as those who oppose the right side of a question. Were there not even these inducements to moderation, nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties. For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution.

I talked a little before about how the invitation for disagreement is one of the things I most admire about T5FSOB, and here it is directly in one of the readings. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're "bad", and just because someone does agree with you doesn't mean they're "good."

"We shall be led to conclude that they will mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions, and to increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives." When someone tells you politics was better back then, they're lying.

History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.

This is also a really fascinating quote. Is this true? If true, it says a lot about the populist movements around the world. I think it is, but I don't want to just agree because someone came up with a good quote for what I already believe.

 He talks about people saying, "thirteen States are of too great extent for any general system." I don't agree with this, but I do sometimes wonder (in regards to the local/state/federal power balance today) how the "size" of the country has been reduced by technology. We're more than 100 times bigger today, but you can get a message from Philly to LA faster than you could to opposite ends of PA in 1788.

Jay talks a lot about how united America is. No difference of language, religion, culture, etc. This is, obviously, bullshit. The Indians existed. The Pennsylvania Dutch existed. Catholics and Jews and Muslims existed. It's kind of hard to take the rest of the piece seriously after that, and it ontinues along much the same lines. He assumes America is perfectly united, and thus would be well served by being joined even closer. I lean Federalist (in so far as someone who lives 250 years later can) overall, but this is a poor argument. 

That said, he's not completely without merit. He makes the good point that the Articles of Confederation were kind scrambled together in rough circumstances, and that it shouldn't be a surprise that they had issues. 

"No less attached to union than enamored of liberty," is a great worker t-shirt quote.

Overall, we could probably have skipped Federalist 2, and still had plenty of good stuff to think about. Maybe there's another (Hamilton wrote like two thirds of them) one that could've been swapped in instead. Putting the rest on the to read list.