Did you know that every State save Connecticut present at the Constitutional Convention sent at least one delegate in his 30's and two sent twenty-somethings?  I find it interesting that a nation founded by such vociforous youngsters as James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and Elbridge Gerry (does the term 'Gerry-mandering' ring a bell?) has come to be ruled by a group of 60+.  Just a thought.

Alexander Hamilton was not born in the States.  Somewhere in the Caribbean, though which island escapes me at the moment.  So he was ineligible to be President, otherwise surely this very well-educated, intelligent signatory of the Constitution would surely have been President in his lifetime.

Hamilton co-authored the Federalist Papers with Madison and John Jay as a written defense of the new Constitution in an attempt to persuade the States to ratify this document and found a new government, which remains our government today.

I have by no means read nor become familiar with all of these writings yet, but Federalist #1 by Hamilton stands out as a favorite of mine.  I would like to discuss two points of this very important historical document, the second of which builds upon the first.

Hamilton does a magnificent job of eloquently developing his points in paragraphs three and four, ending each with his main point in each case in the final sentence(s).

Paragraph three discusses those whose voices rise in opposition to the new Constitution from across the entire 13 States.  Perhaps the most ardent, and loudest of these, though Hamilton does not mention him or any other by name, comes from none other than Patrick Henry of Virginia, he of the famous Revolution-era phrase, "Give me Liberty, or give me death."

"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."

Now, admittedly, in this era of 'Sesame Street,' attention spans, which has produced hit television shows such as 'Friends,' and 'Seinfeld,' Hamilton's writing is a bit more difficult to comprehend on first reading.  But I believe on review that you will find his points to be very profound and even strikingly relevant in today's political environment.

Many traits including ambition and party opposition drive individuals to take a position on matters even today.  Take abortion, for example, and consider the stance of the two major parties.  Or consider the events in Jena, Louisiana of late and the motives of the Reverands Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton in participating in these events.

Even in Hamilton's day, there were great men like George Mason, Henry, and James Monroe on the side of rejecting the Constitution and the calling of a second Constitutional Convention, an action deplorable to the likes of Hamilton and Madison among others, including George Washington.  The men who opposed ratification did not oppose the new government, but they had serious concerns regarding the Constitution, including a glaringly obvious lack of a Bill of Rights.  Most notably, their concern lie in the protection of individual rights such as freedom of religion, speech, and the press, and <are you ready for this one??> States' Rights!

It cannot be blamed on such great men that they would desire to have a government set up immediately that was founded with these principles a part of the Constitution, where the proponents of ratification favored allowing the newly-elected Congress to amend the Constitution, a far easier task than the calling of a new Convention.

These are just some of the reasons that Hamilton takes a conciliatory tone in Federalist #1, alluding to the honorable intentions these men in opposition had in their position, rather than blasting them personally, ratcheting up the political rhetoric of the time, and potentially harming the ratification effort.

Hamilton ends paragraph 3 with an amazing statement of reality which recognizes that those in favor of ratification cannot force their opponents to relent their ideals and join forces with the supporters of the Constitution.  "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. "

However, his second point, enunciated in paragraph 4, takes a slightly different perspective.  Hamilton points out that opponents of ratification had already begun making the arguments, and predicted accurately that they would continue, that those in favor of one national government were in favor of a tyrannical despotism.  Those in opposition, he predicted accurately, would make the point that "an over-scrupulous jealousy of danger to the rights of the people, which is more commonly the fault of the head than of the heart, will be represented as mere pretense and artifice, the stale bait for popularity at the expense of the public good."

What Hamilton meant was that opponents would, "by the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives," seek to push their personal agendas at the expense of the people!

Now, a note in modern times.  We never see this played out today, do we, in issues such as gay marriage, abortion, or taxpayer-supported, nationally-socialized healthcare insurance, do we??  Take note in modern times of that which Hamilton ended paragraph 4 with over 200 years ago!  And take note of those who fall on the wrong side of the Constitution on these issues today.

Hamilton goes on to discuss the use of public opinion on the part of opponents of ratification.  They sought in their arguments to cause the People to distrust this new government through their love for Liberty, while Hamilton points out that in order to secure that Liberty, a government must be put in place to secure and to protect it, which requires the faith and trust in that government that opponents wished to stifle among the People.

He goes on to warn about the intentions of opponents, "and that 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. 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."

Hamilton is much more eloquent in his letters than the medium of blog allows me to be.  Were I to simply reproduce the entire contents of Federalist #1, you wouldn't want to read it, and I would quite possibly be in violatiton of copyright law.  On the other hand, Yale's Law School has given me permission to reproduce content from their Avalon web site in electronic form, I just have to provide proper credit which I readily provide below in the form of a link to the Federalist Papers web site.  Please read this and other materials that they have on this site.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed.htm

Now, so as to apply that which we have learned today from the writings of yesterday to today's political climate, allow me to ask the following questions:

Which Party is even today paying an "obsequious court to the people" lurking behind the "specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people?"

Which Party today employs, "By the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives," seek to push their personal agendas at the expense of the people?

Which Party today seeks not to rule through the "People's Branch," the Legislative Branch--the Congress--instead seeking to push their agenda through the unelected branch, the Judiciary?

It is interesting to note my high school senior English teacher's statement, which I refer to often in this world, that "times change--people don't."  The opposition is seeking to bribe and cajole the "People" with all manner of benefits to them.  Socialized retirement for the old and infirm, socialized housing and welfare for the poor, and now socialized healthcare insurance and income redistribution for all!

Beware the tax man, who gives with one hand but takes double with the other.  History screams out to us across the pages of time to take note.  We are not engaging in any act that is new under the sun.  And if we ignore fact and history, then before we realize it, all that we have will be taken from us.

We must question what the Democratic Party desires to gain by giving so much to so many to gain their support, their trust, and their votes.  We hold them as "Demagogues" today--how long before they show themselves to be the "Tyrants" that they truly are?