Michael Gaddy, [1/9/2023 9:22 AM]Your study material for tomorrow’s class:

FEDERALISTS: DIFFERENT FROM A MONARCHY, HOW?LESSON XLII

What form of government did the Federalists hope to create in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787? Possibly more ink has been spilled over this subject than any other in this country’s history. Historians, politicians and judges have argued the fine points of this argument for over 200 years. I posit that the best mode of discernment concerning this question would be to use the words and actions of the Federalists themselves.

First, let us examine a letter from George Washington, the premier Federalist, to John Jay who would become the first Chief Justice of the soon to be created Supreme Court for clues as to what form of government he hoped to create:

“I do not conceive we can exist long as a nation without having lodged some where a power, which will pervade the whole Union in as energetic a manner, as the authority of the State Governments extends over the several States.”

Here the future president outlines his desires for a government which will “pervade the whole Union” in an “energetic manner” in order to supersede the powers of the several States. Does the words omnipotent monarchy have relevance here? 

Now, ole George prepares to let the cat out of the bag:

“Many are of opinion that Congress have too frequently made use of the suppliant humble tone of requisition, in applications to the States, when they had a right to assert their imperial dignity and command obedience.” 

So, Washington does not see his proposed government to be representative of the people at all but one in which the leaders of said government are to “assert their imperial dignity and command obedience.” From what source does ole George perceive the leaders of his government should acquire this “imperial dignity?” Also, how does a government which can “command obedience” to its wishes/dictates differ from the government of King George upon which much blood and treasure had been expended to defeat?

“Be that as it may, requisitions are a perfect nihility where thirteen sovereign independent disunited States are in the habit of discussing and refusing compliance with them at their option.”

Right, George, so much for that “consent of the governed” BS ole Thomas Jefferson wrote about–it’s all about “imperial dignity” for Washington, Jay and their fellow Federalists!

“It is much to be feared, as you observe, that the better kind of people, being disgusted with the circumstances, will have their minds prepared for any revolution whatever.”

Pardon me, George but just who, in your mind, were the “better kind of people” you mentioned here?

“What astonishing changes a few years are capable of producing. I am told that even respectable characters speak of a monarchical form of Government without horror. From thinking proceeds speaking, thence to acting is often but a single step.” 

My word, George, the government you have advocated above, implemented in this letter, is no different in any measurable form from a “monarchical form of Government.” What else would you call a government of better people who can assert their imperial dignity and command obedience with no concern for the thoughts or concerns of those being governed?

Having established George Washington’s schizophrenic thoughts on the new form of government to fellow Federalist John Jay, let us move on to the government advocated by James Madison in his letter to Edmund Randolph just weeks before the convention in Philadelphia.

“I am also perfectly of your opinion that in framing a system, no material sacrifices ought to be made to local or temporary prejudices.” 

Was Madison saying here that the “prejudices” of the “local” people as opposed to those held by he and his fellow Federalists should not be considered?

“I hold it for a fundamental point that an individual independence of the States, is utterly irreconcileable with the idea of an aggregate sovereignty.” 

Michael Gaddy, [1/9/2023 9:22 AM]Madison here makes two points in my humble opinion: He has no intention whatsoever of following the mandates of the State of Virginia as pertains to amending the Articles of Confederation. Here he admits to a conspiracy to violate the standing Constitution of the day and does so in writing. Secondly, he proposes to dispose of the independence of the individual states, a point which he will continue to develop as his letter continues. Can we say he was “inspired by God” at this point?

“Let it be tried then whether any middle ground can be taken which will at once support a due supremacy of the national authority, and leave in force the local authorities so far as they can be subordinately useful.”

Here Madison states his belief that a “middle ground” can be established as long as the central government is supreme and the states or “local authorities” are only “subordinately useful.” My, my, ole James doesn’t want the state or local governments to even exist in any manner other than that which would be “subject or submissive to the control of others.” 

Jefferson’s “Consent of the governed” mandate again falls victim to the intent of the Federalist mindset. Madison promotes a top-down form of government which is the exact opposite of the bottom-up form of government promoted by Thomas Jefferson as featured in a previous lesson.

“Let the national Government be armed with a positive & compleat authority in all cases where uniform measures are necessary. As in trade &c. &c. Let it also retain the powers which it now possesses.”

Again, A Federalist, just prior to the convention in Philadelphia, proposes what could best be described as a monarchy. Will Madison out and out support a government not unlike the Crown? Hold on!

“Let it [National government] have a negative in all cases whatsoever on the Legislative Acts of the States as the K. of G. B. heretofore had. This I conceive to be essential and the least possible abridgement of the State Soveriegnties.“

This is a point that I have had trouble with for decades; how did the Federalists somehow see the government they desired and obtained as being materially different from the one a war had just been fought to escape? “As the King of Great Britain had” and “the right to assert their imperial dignity and command obedience.” Really, they saw an actual difference?