Comments on: Help Me Please: What Did Our Founders Say About How Citizens Were to Deal with Differences in Viewpoint? http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5892 Mon, 06 Sep 2010 17:59:50 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Ray Pine http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5892&cpage=1#comment-393766 Ray Pine Tue, 02 Mar 2010 00:48:57 +0000 http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5892#comment-393766 Andy, It's all Patrick Henry. Same speech. And yes there are many contrasts between this manly line of thought, and liberalism of today. I must admit to confusion myself, with the apparent internal conflict you are having: " one should extent to one’s fellow citizens a kind of toleration and mutual respect and, in the political realm, a serious engagement to work toward an optimal collective result together." vs: "for today’s liberalism refuses to acknowledge that the force they are up against is darker even than the British empire. At least that was BUILDING something reasonably fine by historical standards. Today’s liberalism has ignored the signs of darkness, and have not declared the true dark nature of their enemy." At any rate, Here's from Wikipedia on Madison from Federalist 10: ...Federalist No. 10 continues the discussion of the question broached in Hamilton's Federalist No. 9. Hamilton there addressed the destructive role of faction in breaking apart the republic. The question Madison answers, then, is how to eliminate the negative effects of faction. He defines a faction as "a number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." He identifies the most serious source of faction to be the diversity of opinion in political life which leads to dispute over fundamental issues such as what regime or religion should be preferred. However, he thinks "the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society." He saw direct democracy as a danger to individual rights and advocated a representative democracy (also called a republic, by republicans) in order to protect what he viewed as individual liberty from majority rule, or from the effects of such inequality within society. He says, "A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." It is important to point out that many others do not consider the word "republic" to be synonymous with representative democracy and believe that, contrary to Madison's belief, the Supreme Court is there to "check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party", for not every majority decision is an infringement upon unalienable rights. Like the anti-Federalists who opposed him, Madison was substantially influenced by the work of Montesquieu, though Madison and Montesquieu disagreed on the question addressed in this essay. He also relied heavily on the philosophers of the Scottish Enlightenment, especially David Hume, whose influence is most clear in Madison's discussion of the types of faction and in his argument for an extended republic. [edit] Madison's arguments Madison first asserts that there are two ways to limit the damage caused by faction: either remove the causes of faction or control its effects. He contends that there are two ways to remove the causes that provoke the development of factions. The first, destroying the Liberty, would work because “liberty is to faction what air is to fire” but it is impossible to perform because liberty is essential to political life, Americans having fought for it during the American Revolution. The other option—creating a society homogeneous in opinions and interests—he sees as impractical. Madison explains that common people’s opinions are always influenced by their emotions and their self-interest. They don’t always think clearly; they don’t approach situations in the same way. The diversity of the people's ability which make them succeed more or less and in which inequality of property derive is a right that the government should protect. Madison particularly emphasizes that economic stratification, which naturally exists in a world where different people have different skills, prevents everyone from sharing the same opinion. Madison concludes that the damage caused by faction can be limited only by controlling its effects. He then argues that the only problem comes from majority factions because the principle of popular sovereignty should prevent minority factions from gaining power. Madison offers two ways to check majority factions: either prevent the "existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time," or render a majority faction unable to act. Madison concludes that a small democracy cannot avoid the dangers of majority faction because small size means that undesirable passions can very easily spread to a majority of the people, which can then enact its will through the democratic government without difficulty. Madison states “The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man” so the cure is to control factions’ effects. He makes an argument on how this is not possible in a pure democracy but possible in a republic. With pure democracy he means a system in which every citizen votes directly for laws. And with republic he intends a society in which citizens vote for an elite of representatives who then vote for laws. He indicates that the voice of the people pronounced by a body of representatives is more conformable to the interest of the community, since again,common people’s decisions are affected by their self-interest. He then makes an argument in favor of a large republic against a small republic for the choice of “fit characters” to represent the public’s voice. In a large republic where the number of voters and candidates is greater, the probability to elect competent representatives is broader. The voters have a wider option. In a small republic it would also be easier for the candidates to fool the voters, while in a large one, harder. The last argument Madison makes in favor of a large republic is, in a small republic there will be a lower variety of interests and parties, so more frequently a majority will be found. The number of participants of that majority, will be lower, and considering they live in a more limited territory, it would be easier for them to agree and work together for the accomplishment of their ideas. While in a large republic the variety of interests will be greater so to make it harder to find a majority. Even if there is a majority it would be harder for them to work together because of the large number of people and the fact they are spread out in a wider territory. A republic, Madison writes, is different from a democracy because its government is placed in the hands of delegates, and as a result of this, it can be extended over a larger area. The idea is that in a large republic there will be more "fit characters" to choose from for each delegate. Also, the fact that each representative is chosen from a larger constituency should make the "vicious arts", a reference to rhetoric, of electioneering less effective. For instance, in a large republic a corrupt delegate would need to bribe many more people in order to win an election than in a small republic. Second, in a republic the delegates both filter and refine the many demands of the people so as to prevent the type of frivolous claims that impede purely democratic governments. Though Madison argued for a large and diverse republic, the writers of the Papers recognized the need for a balance. They wanted a republic diverse enough to prevent faction but with enough commonality to maintain cohesion among the states. In Federalist No. 2, John Jay counted as a blessing that America possessed "one united people—a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion." Madison himself addresses a limitation of his conclusion that large constituencies will provide better representatives. He notes that if constituencies are too large, the representatives will be "too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests." He says that this problem is partly solved by federalism. No matter how large the constituencies of federal representatives, local matters will be looked after by state and local officials with naturally smaller constituencies. end copy from Wikipedia if you take the trouble to google "Federalist Papers factions", there is much much more. Interesting that his concerns then were with redistribution of wealth, which apparently he saw as an encroachment of individual rights, particularly to property. Also that he (incorrectly ?) felt that in a large republic it would be difficult for delegates to bribe their way into office. He'd no concept of earmarks. We've come a long way baby. How'd he have felt about forcing everyone to give up their property for (to purchase) health insurance? I'm pretty sure I know what Franklin would have said: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. " A good source of many quotes from writers contemporaneous with the American Revolution is a book called "The Spirit of Seventy-Six: The Story of the American Revolution as Told by its Participants" ed by Henry Steele Commager and Richard Morris-1348pages! Just picked up "The 5000 Year Leap", touted by Glenn Beck. It promises to be a source of references to sentiments expressed by many of the founders as well, but I doubt you'd be any more likely to read it than I will be to pick up Audacity... Cheers, Ray Andy,
It’s all Patrick Henry. Same speech.
And yes there are many contrasts between this manly line of thought, and liberalism of today.
I must admit to confusion myself, with the apparent internal conflict you are having:
” one should extent to one’s fellow citizens a kind of toleration and mutual respect and, in the political realm, a serious engagement to work toward an optimal collective result together.” vs:
“for today’s liberalism refuses to acknowledge that the force they are up against is darker even than the British empire. At least that was BUILDING something reasonably fine by historical standards. Today’s liberalism has ignored the signs of darkness, and have not declared the true dark nature of their enemy.”
At any rate,

Here’s from Wikipedia on Madison from Federalist 10:
…Federalist No. 10 continues the discussion of the question broached in Hamilton’s Federalist No. 9. Hamilton there addressed the destructive role of faction in breaking apart the republic. The question Madison answers, then, is how to eliminate the negative effects of faction. He defines a faction as “a number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” He identifies the most serious source of faction to be the diversity of opinion in political life which leads to dispute over fundamental issues such as what regime or religion should be preferred. However, he thinks “the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society.” He saw direct democracy as a danger to individual rights and advocated a representative democracy (also called a republic, by republicans) in order to protect what he viewed as individual liberty from majority rule, or from the effects of such inequality within society. He says, “A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” It is important to point out that many others do not consider the word “republic” to be synonymous with representative democracy and believe that, contrary to Madison’s belief, the Supreme Court is there to “check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party”, for not every majority decision is an infringement upon unalienable rights.

Like the anti-Federalists who opposed him, Madison was substantially influenced by the work of Montesquieu, though Madison and Montesquieu disagreed on the question addressed in this essay. He also relied heavily on the philosophers of the Scottish Enlightenment, especially David Hume, whose influence is most clear in Madison’s discussion of the types of faction and in his argument for an extended republic.

[edit] Madison’s arguments
Madison first asserts that there are two ways to limit the damage caused by faction: either remove the causes of faction or control its effects. He contends that there are two ways to remove the causes that provoke the development of factions. The first, destroying the Liberty, would work because “liberty is to faction what air is to fire” but it is impossible to perform because liberty is essential to political life, Americans having fought for it during the American Revolution. The other option—creating a society homogeneous in opinions and interests—he sees as impractical. Madison explains that common people’s opinions are always influenced by their emotions and their self-interest. They don’t always think clearly; they don’t approach situations in the same way. The diversity of the people’s ability which make them succeed more or less and in which inequality of property derive is a right that the government should protect. Madison particularly emphasizes that economic stratification, which naturally exists in a world where different people have different skills, prevents everyone from sharing the same opinion. Madison concludes that the damage caused by faction can be limited only by controlling its effects.

He then argues that the only problem comes from majority factions because the principle of popular sovereignty should prevent minority factions from gaining power. Madison offers two ways to check majority factions: either prevent the “existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time,” or render a majority faction unable to act. Madison concludes that a small democracy cannot avoid the dangers of majority faction because small size means that undesirable passions can very easily spread to a majority of the people, which can then enact its will through the democratic government without difficulty.

Madison states “The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man” so the cure is to control factions’ effects. He makes an argument on how this is not possible in a pure democracy but possible in a republic. With pure democracy he means a system in which every citizen votes directly for laws. And with republic he intends a society in which citizens vote for an elite of representatives who then vote for laws. He indicates that the voice of the people pronounced by a body of representatives is more conformable to the interest of the community, since again,common people’s decisions are affected by their self-interest.

He then makes an argument in favor of a large republic against a small republic for the choice of “fit characters” to represent the public’s voice. In a large republic where the number of voters and candidates is greater, the probability to elect competent representatives is broader. The voters have a wider option. In a small republic it would also be easier for the candidates to fool the voters, while in a large one, harder. The last argument Madison makes in favor of a large republic is, in a small republic there will be a lower variety of interests and parties, so more frequently a majority will be found. The number of participants of that majority, will be lower, and considering they live in a more limited territory, it would be easier for them to agree and work together for the accomplishment of their ideas. While in a large republic the variety of interests will be greater so to make it harder to find a majority. Even if there is a majority it would be harder for them to work together because of the large number of people and the fact they are spread out in a wider territory.

A republic, Madison writes, is different from a democracy because its government is placed in the hands of delegates, and as a result of this, it can be extended over a larger area. The idea is that in a large republic there will be more “fit characters” to choose from for each delegate. Also, the fact that each representative is chosen from a larger constituency should make the “vicious arts”, a reference to rhetoric, of electioneering less effective. For instance, in a large republic a corrupt delegate would need to bribe many more people in order to win an election than in a small republic. Second, in a republic the delegates both filter and refine the many demands of the people so as to prevent the type of frivolous claims that impede purely democratic governments.

Though Madison argued for a large and diverse republic, the writers of the Papers recognized the need for a balance. They wanted a republic diverse enough to prevent faction but with enough commonality to maintain cohesion among the states. In Federalist No. 2, John Jay counted as a blessing that America possessed “one united people—a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion.” Madison himself addresses a limitation of his conclusion that large constituencies will provide better representatives. He notes that if constituencies are too large, the representatives will be “too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests.” He says that this problem is partly solved by federalism. No matter how large the constituencies of federal representatives, local matters will be looked after by state and local officials with naturally smaller constituencies.
end copy from Wikipedia
if you take the trouble to google “Federalist Papers factions”, there is much much more.

Interesting that his concerns then were with redistribution of wealth, which apparently he saw as an encroachment of individual rights, particularly to property. Also that he (incorrectly ?) felt that in a large republic it would be difficult for delegates to bribe their way into office. He’d no concept of earmarks. We’ve come a long way baby. How’d he have felt about forcing everyone to give up their property for (to purchase) health insurance? I’m pretty sure I know what Franklin would have said:
“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. ”

A good source of many quotes from writers contemporaneous with the American Revolution is a book called “The Spirit of Seventy-Six: The Story of the American Revolution as Told by its Participants” ed by Henry Steele Commager and Richard Morris-1348pages!
Just picked up “The 5000 Year Leap”, touted by Glenn Beck. It promises to be a source of references to sentiments expressed by many of the founders as well, but I doubt you’d be any more likely to read it than I will be to pick up Audacity…
Cheers,
Ray

]]> By: Andrew Bard Schmookler http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5892&cpage=1#comment-393687 Andrew Bard Schmookler Mon, 01 Mar 2010 20:09:50 +0000 http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5892#comment-393687 Forgive, please, my inadequate attention. But who is it that you're quoting above, and in what circumstances, when you posted this: <blockquote>Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation — the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motives for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer on the subject? Nothing. </blockquote> Remind, please. I see that passage from that time and contrast its manly spirit with the unwillingness of American liberalism today to stand up to the current purveyor of injustice and disturbance. What he does in that quotation is to reveal the true nature of the enemy --the face of domination-by-force-- and tell his audience not to be deceived by a superficial sign of friendliness. And I contrast liberalism of today with this speaker, for today's liberalism refuses to acknowledge that the force they are up against is darker even than the British empire. At least that was BUILDING something reasonably fine by historical standards. Today's liberalism has ignored the signs of darkness, and have not declared the true dark nature of their enemy. Why? Forgive, please, my inadequate attention. But who is it that you’re quoting above, and in what circumstances, when you posted this:

Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation — the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motives for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies?

No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer on the subject? Nothing.

Remind, please.

I see that passage from that time and contrast its manly spirit with the unwillingness of American liberalism today to stand up to the current purveyor of injustice and disturbance. What he does in that quotation is to reveal the true nature of the enemy –the face of domination-by-force– and tell his audience not to be deceived by a superficial sign of friendliness. And I contrast liberalism of today with this speaker, for today’s liberalism refuses to acknowledge that the force they are up against is darker even than the British empire. At least that was BUILDING something reasonably fine by historical standards. Today’s liberalism has ignored the signs of darkness, and have not declared the true dark nature of their enemy.

Why?

]]> By: Ray Pine http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5892&cpage=1#comment-393678 Ray Pine Mon, 01 Mar 2010 19:23:26 +0000 http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5892#comment-393678 Andy, Finally this, of course:No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope that it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen, if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty towards the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings. Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth -- to know the worst and to provide for it. I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House? Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation -- the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motives for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer on the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves longer. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free -- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending -- if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us! They tell us, sir, that we are weak -- unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of the means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable -- and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come! It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, "Peace! Peace!" -- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death! Patrick Henry - March 23, 1775 Andy,
Finally this, of course:No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope that it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen, if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve.

This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty towards the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation?

For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth — to know the worst and to provide for it. I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House?

Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation — the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motives for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies?

No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer on the subject? Nothing.

We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves longer.

Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament.

Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope.

If we wish to be free — if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending — if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak — unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?

Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of the means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.

The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable — and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come!

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, “Peace! Peace!” — but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!

Patrick Henry – March 23, 1775

]]> By: Ray Pine http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5892&cpage=1#comment-393676 Ray Pine Mon, 01 Mar 2010 19:20:42 +0000 http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5892#comment-393676 Andy, There's this, of course: "If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams Guess he wasn't a deliberative Democrat. Andy,
There’s this, of course:
“If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
Guess he wasn’t a deliberative Democrat.

]]> By: Ray Pine http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5892&cpage=1#comment-393673 Ray Pine Mon, 01 Mar 2010 19:16:19 +0000 http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5892#comment-393673 Andy, I can't reference them here and now, but seem to remember that Madison had some thoughts on political factions in the Federalist Papers. I believe Washington too, maybe in his Farewell Address, or one of the inaugural addresses, spoke to the dangers of factionalism. Andy,
I can’t reference them here and now, but seem to remember that Madison had some thoughts on political factions in the Federalist Papers. I believe Washington too, maybe in his Farewell Address, or one of the inaugural addresses, spoke to the dangers of factionalism.

]]> By: Larry http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5892&cpage=1#comment-392895 Larry Sat, 27 Feb 2010 02:37:11 +0000 http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5892#comment-392895 I was kind of hoping that Dr. Schmookler could count on you here, Jim Z. :-) By the way, I hope Andy will not mind my mentioning, as has sometimes been done by others under similar circumstances in the past, I left a message for you at http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5754#comment-392649 , about an article in that older thread that you might find of particular interest to you. Larry I was kind of hoping that Dr. Schmookler could count on you here, Jim Z. :-)

By the way, I hope Andy will not mind my mentioning, as has sometimes been done by others under similar circumstances in the past, I left a message for you at http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5754#comment-392649 , about an article in that older thread that you might find of particular interest to you.

Larry

]]> By: Jim Z. http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5892&cpage=1#comment-392671 Jim Z. Fri, 26 Feb 2010 18:45:22 +0000 http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5892#comment-392671 Hope that his long URL comes through and works: http://books.google.com/books?id=N8qig9Jbbg8C&pg=PA89&lpg=PA89&dq=civility+the+founders&source=bl&ots=eb8_jBbHW9&sig=uR808lU0sV5jTf439WUJazVhS0I&hl=en&ei=vRWIS8vTBIG8swO2uZWGAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CA8Q6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=civility%20the%20founders&f=false It contains exerpts (you have to scroll down a little bit) of various Founders on the subject of civility. I especially like those of Jefferson and Franklin. Hope that his long URL comes through and works:

http://books.google.com/books?id=N8qig9Jbbg8C&pg=PA89&lpg=PA89&dq=civility+the+founders&source=bl&ots=eb8_jBbHW9&sig=uR808lU0sV5jTf439WUJazVhS0I&hl=en&ei=vRWIS8vTBIG8swO2uZWGAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CA8Q6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=civility%20the%20founders&f=false

It contains exerpts (you have to scroll down a little bit) of various Founders on the subject of civility. I especially like those of Jefferson and Franklin.

]]> By: Andrew Bard Schmookler http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5892&cpage=1#comment-392604 Andrew Bard Schmookler Fri, 26 Feb 2010 14:54:11 +0000 http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5892#comment-392604 Richard, that too. But that involves defending liberalism per se, which is a different point. I am interested in critiquing the whole posture-- that it would be wrong --according to the Founders they claim to revere-- to take their attitude toward ANY long-standing mainstream point of view held by half the nation's citizens, that it is a stance that's INHERENTLY unpatriotic, if one believes patriotism includes some form of fidelity to the nation's founding ideals. Richard, that too. But that involves defending liberalism per se, which is a different point. I am interested in critiquing the whole posture– that it would be wrong –according to the Founders they claim to revere– to take their attitude toward ANY long-standing mainstream point of view held by half the nation’s citizens, that it is a stance that’s INHERENTLY unpatriotic, if one believes patriotism includes some form of fidelity to the nation’s founding ideals.

]]> By: Richard H. Randall http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5892&cpage=1#comment-392422 Richard H. Randall Fri, 26 Feb 2010 04:37:57 +0000 http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5892#comment-392422 I would think about changing your claim to say something like they abuse the freedom which many have died to give them so they may spew their intolerance and lies on their political foes who come from a background which has given us great institutions in our history, like women's rights, civil rights, social security, public education, medicare medicaid, environemtal protection, and so on. I would think about changing your claim to say something like they abuse the freedom which many have died to give them so they may spew their intolerance and lies on their political foes who come from a background which has given us great institutions in our history, like women’s rights,
civil rights, social security, public education, medicare medicaid, environemtal protection, and so on.

]]> By: Bess http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5892&cpage=1#comment-392378 Bess Fri, 26 Feb 2010 01:56:46 +0000 http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5892#comment-392378 Here is a representative selection from a site that has quotes from the FFs--from John Adams--some relate to what you are looking for. : John Adams Quotes Here are quotes by one of America's greatest founding fathers, John Adams, and related quotations about America's founding. For more history, see Founding Fathers. A constitution founded on these principles introduces knowledge among the people, and inspires them with a conscious dignity becoming freemen; a general emulation takes place, which causes good humor, sociability, good manners, and good morals to be general. That elevation of sentiment inspired by such a government, makes the common people brave and enterprising. That ambition which is inspired by it makes them sober, industrious, and frugal. John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776 As good government is an empire of laws, how shall your laws be made? In a large society, inhabiting an extensive country, it is impossible that the whole should assemble to make laws. The first necessary step, then, is to depute power from the many to a few of the most wise and good. John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776 As long as Property exists, it will accumulate in Individuals and Families. As long as Marriage exists, Knowledge, Property and Influence will accumulate in Families. John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, July 16, 1814 But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. John Adams, letter to Abigail Adams, July 17, 1775 But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war? The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments, of their duties and obligations...This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution. John Adams, letter to H. Niles, February 13, 1818 Children should be educated and instructed in the principles of freedom. John Adams, Defense of the Constitutions, 1787 Each individual of the society has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property, according to standing laws. He is obliged, consequently, to contribute his share to the expense of this protection; and to give his personal service, or an equivalent, when necessary. But no part of the property of any individual can, with justice, be taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that of the representative body of the people. In fine, the people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent. John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776 Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States.... I have, throughout my whole life, held the practice of slavery in... abhorrence. John Adams, letter to Evans, June 8, 1819 Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. John Adams, in Defense of the British Soldiers on trial for the Boston Massacre, December 4, 1770 Fear is the foundation of most governments; but it is so sordid and brutal a passion, and renders men in whose breasts it predominates so stupid and miserable, that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution which is founded on it. John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776 Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it. John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776 His Example is now complete, and it will teach wisdom and virtue to magistrates, citizens, and men, not only in the present age, but in future generations, as long as our history shall be read. John Adams, message to the U.S. Senate, December 19, 1799 Human government is more or less perfect as it approaches nearer or diverges farther from the imitation of this perfect plan of divine and moral government. John Adams, draft of a Newspaper Communication, Circa August 1770 Human nature itself is evermore an advocate for liberty. There is also in human nature a resentment of injury, and indignation against wrong. A love of truth and a veneration of virtue. These amiable passions, are the "latent spark"... If the people are capable of understanding, seeing and feeling the differences between true and false, right and wrong, virtue and vice, to what better principle can the friends of mankind apply than to the sense of this difference? John Adams, the Novanglus, 1775 I have accepted a seat in the [Massachusetts] House of Representatives, and thereby have consented to my own ruin, to your ruin, and the ruin of our children. I give you this warning, that you may prepare your mind for your fate. John Adams, to Abigail Adams, May 1770 I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain. John Adams, letter to Abigail Adams, 1780 I Pray Heaven to Bestow The Best of Blessing on THIS HOUSE, and on ALL that shall hereafter Inhabit it. May none but Honest and Wise Men ever rule under This Roof! John Adams, letter to Abigail Adams, November 2, 1800 I think he [Jefferson] had one more vote than any other, and that placed him at the head of the committee. I had the next highest number, and that placed me second. The committee met, discussed the subject, [of the Declaration of Independence] and then appointed Mr. Jefferson and me to make the draught, I suppose because we were the two first on the list. The subcommittee met. Jefferson proposed to me to make the draught. Adams: I will not. Jefferson: You should do it. Adams: Oh! no. Jefferson Why will you not? You ought to do it. Adams: I will not. Jefferson: Why? Adams: Reasons enough. Jefferson: What can be your reasons? Adams: John Adams, to Thomas Jefferson concerning the drafting of the Declaration, June 1775 If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave. John Adams, Rights of the Colonists, 1772 If there is a form of government, then, whose principle and foundation is virtue, will not every sober man acknowledge it better calculated to promote the general happiness than any other form? John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776 It should be remembered that our Constitution did not establish a democracy--it provided a framework for a republican form of government that could and did become more democratic with the passage of time--and the addition of several amendments. I didn't look at all the quotes of the FFs--I hope you find something that suffices to support your point. Here is a representative selection from a site that has quotes from the FFs–from John Adams–some relate to what you are looking for. :
John Adams Quotes
Here are quotes by one of America’s greatest founding fathers, John Adams, and related quotations about America’s founding. For more history, see Founding Fathers.

A constitution founded on these principles introduces knowledge among the people, and inspires them with a conscious dignity becoming freemen; a general emulation takes place, which causes good humor, sociability, good manners, and good morals to be general. That elevation of sentiment inspired by such a government, makes the common people brave and enterprising. That ambition which is inspired by it makes them sober, industrious, and frugal.

John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776

As good government is an empire of laws, how shall your laws be made? In a large society, inhabiting an extensive country, it is impossible that the whole should assemble to make laws. The first necessary step, then, is to depute power from the many to a few of the most wise and good.

John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776

As long as Property exists, it will accumulate in Individuals and Families. As long as Marriage exists, Knowledge, Property and Influence will accumulate in Families.

John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, July 16, 1814

But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.

John Adams, letter to Abigail Adams, July 17, 1775

But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war? The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments, of their duties and obligations…This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution.

John Adams, letter to H. Niles, February 13, 1818

Children should be educated and instructed in the principles of freedom.

John Adams, Defense of the Constitutions, 1787

Each individual of the society has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property, according to standing laws. He is obliged, consequently, to contribute his share to the expense of this protection; and to give his personal service, or an equivalent, when necessary. But no part of the property of any individual can, with justice, be taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that of the representative body of the people. In fine, the people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent.

John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776

Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States…. I have, throughout my whole life, held the practice of slavery in… abhorrence.

John Adams, letter to Evans, June 8, 1819

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.

John Adams, in Defense of the British Soldiers on trial for the Boston Massacre, December 4, 1770

Fear is the foundation of most governments; but it is so sordid and brutal a passion, and renders men in whose breasts it predominates so stupid and miserable, that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution which is founded on it.

John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776

Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.

John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776

His Example is now complete, and it will teach wisdom and virtue to magistrates, citizens, and men, not only in the present age, but in future generations, as long as our history shall be read.

John Adams, message to the U.S. Senate, December 19, 1799

Human government is more or less perfect as it approaches nearer or diverges farther from the imitation of this perfect plan of divine and moral government.

John Adams, draft of a Newspaper Communication, Circa August 1770

Human nature itself is evermore an advocate for liberty. There is also in human nature a resentment of injury, and indignation against wrong. A love of truth and a veneration of virtue. These amiable passions, are the “latent spark”… If the people are capable of understanding, seeing and feeling the differences between true and false, right and wrong, virtue and vice, to what better principle can the friends of mankind apply than to the sense of this difference?

John Adams, the Novanglus, 1775

I have accepted a seat in the [Massachusetts] House of Representatives, and thereby have consented to my own ruin, to your ruin, and the ruin of our children. I give you this warning, that you may prepare your mind for your fate.

John Adams, to Abigail Adams, May 1770

I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain.

John Adams, letter to Abigail Adams, 1780

I Pray Heaven to Bestow The Best of Blessing on THIS HOUSE, and on ALL that shall hereafter Inhabit it. May none but Honest and Wise Men ever rule under This Roof!

John Adams, letter to Abigail Adams, November 2, 1800

I think he [Jefferson] had one more vote than any other, and that placed him at the head of the committee. I had the next highest number, and that placed me second. The committee met, discussed the subject, [of the Declaration of Independence] and then appointed Mr. Jefferson and me to make the draught, I suppose because we were the two first on the list. The subcommittee met. Jefferson proposed to me to make the draught. Adams: I will not. Jefferson: You should do it. Adams: Oh! no. Jefferson Why will you not? You ought to do it. Adams: I will not. Jefferson: Why? Adams: Reasons enough. Jefferson: What can be your reasons? Adams:

John Adams, to Thomas Jefferson concerning the drafting of the Declaration, June 1775

If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave.

John Adams, Rights of the Colonists, 1772

If there is a form of government, then, whose principle and foundation is virtue, will not every sober man acknowledge it better calculated to promote the general happiness than any other form?

John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776

It should be remembered that our Constitution did not establish a democracy–it provided a framework for a republican form of government that could and did become more democratic with the passage of time–and the addition of several amendments. I didn’t look at all the quotes of the FFs–I hope you find something that suffices to support your point.

]]>