The Historian's Archives

I commented briefly on a post written by my Mom, Mrs. Mecomber, at New York Traveler.net, here. It became a full-blown discussion about government and society, and I would like to share my thoughts on that from a historical perspective, to the best of my ability, since part of the discussion was a response to what I initially wrote.

In response to something I said, Aahz wrote:

However, what you (and America’s Founding Fathers) fail to see is that if man can’t be trusted to run his own life, then how can he be trusted to run the lives of others?

Let's make one thing clear. Under our Constitutional form of govt., govt. officials do not "RUN your life." The govt. "runs people's lives" now, not because govt. is just evil, but because the govt. was not kept from transgressing the bounds set for it BY OUR CONSTITUTION. The blame for this fatal mistake rests upon none other than the American populous.

Actually, the Founders did NOT fail to ask this question; if one reads the quote above I presented from The Federalist 51, he will realize that they DID ask this question, and came up with the answer "oblige the govt. to control itself."

How does that happen? First of all, our govt. was not set up so that the public officials governed according to their own whim, as they had always done in other countries and other civilizations. Rather, they are merely enforcing the law. The local policeman does not stop you you on the road just because he doesn't like you, but because you are passing the speed limit, or have broken some other LAW. If he did stop you for any reason other than by a requirement of LAW, he would have his badge and his place taken from him, as long as LAW is still in force.

The point is, that our govt. was set up to be a govt. of LAW, and NOT of MAN. It is crucial to understand this. Our govt. officials should not govern the nation based upon their whim, but should govern according to the CONSTITUTION; if they fail to do this (just as current govt. in this country for the most part has done), than those OFFICIALS should be removed and replaced. It does not mean that we throw out the baby with the bathwater by abolishing govt. altogether, because history has proven that this action (anarchy) devolves back into tyranny. The French Revolution, immediately succeeded by the tyrannical reign of Napoleon, is one of the most horrific examples. Without the rule of law, there can be no liberty, and it takes a degree of govt. to see that law is enforced. Since human nature is inherent corrupt and selfish, man must be controlled. Our Founders framed our govt. in such a way that the govt. checks the passions of the people and the people check the passions of the govt., and that this process is guided by our CONSTITUTION.

Our Founding Fathers abhorred the principles of the French Revolution, which said that govt. and religion were hindrances upon the freedom of man. When the Revolutionaries overthrew their govt. a state of anarchy ensued as the anti-govt. Jacobins tried to secure anarchy by defeating the pro-govt-revolutionaries, the Feulliants. The nation of France had not only rejected govt., but they rejected all law, and since there was no govt., there was no one to restore order, peace, and the rule of law until Napoleon came along to establish himself as the law of the land. Until that time, the streets of Paris ran with blood from the guillotine.

You’re right that the French revolution was a disaster. But then, instituting democracy in Somalia was a disaster as well. The country has only flourished since the formal government was abandoned and the people left to fend for themselves.

If Somalia was such a success, then why aren't people who are seeking for freedom flocking to Somalia? In spite of all our problems, America is the freest, wealthiest, and most prosperous and productive nation on the earth today. People voting with their feet don't seem to contest that.

Let me also point out Somalia's SIZE, in comparison to America's current SIZE (both in land mass and in population). Somalia has an area of 246,201 square miles with a population of 9,118,773 (the 59th largest in the world). Compare that to the United States, which has an area of 3,794,066 square miles and a population of 303,320,000 (the 3rd largest population in the world). Democracies work better in smaller countries than in big ones. Democracies are also very incapable of defending themselves. These aspects were discussed in The Federalist Papers and in the Anti-Federalist Papers, as you probably know. The Federalists won the argument (and by the way, most of the leading Federalists and pro-Constitutionists were veterans of the Revolutionary War who had fought in the Continental Army, not just the rich aristocrats like the 20th century revisionists have convinced many Americans to believe). Why were most of them veterans? Because they were the ones who suffered under a more "democratic" form of government. While the states, who practically possessed all sovereignty in national affairs thanks to the Articles of Confederation, were bickering in Congress about which one of them was going to send the most supplies and money to Congress, or which citizen of which state was going to go to represent America in France or replace George Washington as Commander-in-Chief, the Continental troops were dying of lack of food, clean water, adequate medical treatment, and other forms of privation. They experienced the worst side-effect of this more "democratic" organization of government.

The Founding Fathers did not run into revolutionary excesses when they started the American Revolution, and no nation has equaled America in freedom and prosperity so long as we have stuck to our Constitution, which they made for us. Why is this? Our Founders, when they rebelled against tyranny, did not overthrow the institution of govt. altogether; in the Declaration of Independence, they said, “That whenever govt. becomes destructive of these ends [the protection of life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness], it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, AND TO INSTITUTE A NEW GOVT., laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Aahz also said:

“However, I DO believe that people CAN get along if left to themselves. There are countless examples of this very thing happening.”

I would like to know of these “countless examples.” They must be hiding in the dark somewhere. It is true that people in smaller groups do not need as much govt., and can get along better without an organized political state over them; however, even on the most minuscule level, people must have govt. (I.e., an authority figure, and one who administers the rules) on the level of family, church, business, town, etc. Man left to himself, without the restraint of LAW, will trample on other's rights just to get what he wants. Everybody from little kids to emperors is like this; to claim otherwise is fantasy, unless you can prove that a whole society prospered without govt. Again, I'd like to see these countless examples you speak of.

I agree that the govt. now is trying to make us their serfs, but the answer is not to annihilate the govt.; the answer is to RETURN TO OUR CONSTITUTION! We are in a state of tyranny now, not because we have govt., but because we have lost the rule of law. As Alexander Hamilton said:

“Most of our mistakes can be laid at the doorstep of our failure to follow the Constitution. That Constitution, if we so desire, can provide needed guidance and a road map to restore our liberties…"

Aahz also said, concerning the U.S. Constitution and Dec. of I.:

“As for the Declaration of Independence it is a great document. As is the Constitution. However, they are also both rife with hypocrisy - All men are created unless they’re black, or female, or foreign, or not landowners.”

OK, this statement is rife with historical inaccuracy.

First of all, the Founders did believe that all humans are created with equal value (although the context of the phrase “all men are created equal” seems to imply that they wrote to say “all men are equal under the law” -- that is, no matter who someone is, he cannot claim to have more authority over the law). Just because they did not legislate to give blacks, women, non-landowners the right to vote does not mean that they thought that white male landowners were more valuable than all other people. (It is interesting to note that Alexander Hamilton, a framer and signer of the Constitution often accused of pandering to the wealthy for his own gain, did not own land, or even a home of his own, until the last four years of his life.) As to the treatment of the Founders toward blacks and women, they established abolition societies and schools for women long before the abolition and suffrage movements of the 19^th century. Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration, along with Franklin, established the first American abolition society, and it was Rush again who founded the first college for women. Hamilton, who has often been falsely called a lackey of aristocrats, etc., (see this post which disproves that assertion), also founded an abolition society with John Jay (co-author of The Federalist Papers) in NY, and during the American Revolution, suggested that blacks should be allowed to fight for freedom, and be given their freedom if they agreed to fight with the Americans. Hamilton, too, was a believer that women should cultivate their education, and even went out of his way to complement the literary skills of Mercy Otis Warren, even though her political ideas were contrary to his. Washington said that no one wished more fervently that slavery be abolished than he did. Jefferson unsuccessfully tried to decry the practice of slavery in the Declaration, but Congressional delegates from South Carolina and Georgia prevented this portion of the D. of Independence from passing, threatening to secede from the Union. There are countless other examples of the Founding Fathers trying to stop slavery, but it was a touchy situation, because the Southern states threatened to secede if the federal govt. made them give up the practice, and if the Union broke up, the American experiment would have been destroyed. The Founding Fathers who owned slaves only continued to do so during their lifetimes because those blacks did not know how to support themselves, and states like VA had passed laws against the education of blacks. It was a sad situation, and the Founders thought they had no choice but to take gradual steps toward abolition, and to leave the final step to posterity.

Aahz also says:

"I’ve read and reread the Federalist papers and other documents of America’s founders and found them to be full of the same pro-state arguments that you are making. The voices I agree with were drowned out or compromised away by those in favor of tyranny as the Constitution clearly shows."

"There was a time when we were told that breaches, by the States, of the regulations of the federal authority were not to be expected; that a sense of common interest would preside over the conduct of the respective members, and would beget a full compliance with all the constitutional requisitions of the Union. This language, at the present day, would appear as wild as a great part of what we now hear from the same quarter will be thought, when we shall have received further lessons from that best oracle of wisdom, experience. It at all times betrayed an ignorance of the true springs by which human conduct is actuated, and belied the original inducements to the establishment of civil power. Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice, without constraint. Has it been found that bodies of men act with more rectitude or greater disinterestedness than individuals? The contrary of this has been inferred by all accurate observers of the conduct of mankind." Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist #15 (emphasis added)

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions." James Madison or Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist #51