Succession? A Word of Caution from the Authors of The Federalist Papers.

I have been re-reading the Federalist Papers, and the more I read, the more I find a number of things.

1) I didn’t really read it the first time.

2) The authors (primarily Alexander Hamilton), were not only gifted with genius, but were likewise, probably unknown to themselves, philosopher/psychologists. They had such keen insight into human nature and all it’s attendant flaws, and how by extension, work their way into the arena of the political beast.

3) Additionally the more I read the more I am convinced that those calling for succession should first read this book and give very careful consideration to what they are contemplating. There is much that would need to be considered and even more to be resolved beforehand should such a course of action be undertaken. While in the end, I would indeed follow such a drastic course of action only as a last resort, I caution against it, as an impulsive solution.

4) I realize that the calls for succession are based on the two polar opposites of our current political situation. Progressivism vs Conservatism. Both ideologies, are, 180° apart. This is due mostly by the different view as to what constitutes liberty/freedom and equality. The former puts forth the doctrine of “social justice” as a means to attain equality for all people or to term it differently equality of results via big government. The later sees this doctrine as destructive and therefore counters that equality under the law is what matters most, in so far as it frees the individual to go as far as their ability will take them in achieving their goals in life. That in turn results in true liberty. I myself subscribe to the latter theory based on the fact that once a government starts to intervene in the obtaining a personal goals, by putting itself as arbitrator and limiter as to what those goals should be, we find that we become less free.

5) The arguments as put forth in the Federalist papers, were based primarily on different views as to how the unity of the newly born nation; The United States of America was to be maintained. That is to say on the one hand should they continue under the Articles of Confederation, being a loose association of states or on the other, under a new U.S. Constitution and become a firm and unified republic of states. Fortunately the second view prevailed and for over 200 years we have remained relatively true to those laws that were first implemented by the ratification of the US Constitution.

6) While thinking upon statements 4 and 5, I have concluded that while the driving forces between the two are different; the first based on unity of the nation, the second based on opposite views of how the nation should define itself, the arguments as put forth in the Federalist papers apply to both, and as such should be thoughtfully read, and even more thoughtfully mentally applied to our current crisis. We indeed are at a crossroads, or fork in the road, if you prefer in our history.
7) It is my personal opinion that the view that “equality of results is what matters” will eventually tear this nation down. However, succession, even IF successful, will someday expose both the parent nation and it’s offspring to jealousies, covertness and all the other ills that flawed a people posses to fester and possibly lead to open hostilities. I leave you with this quote as stated in Federals No. 4:

“But whatever may be our situation, whether firmly united under
one national government, or split into a number of confederacies,
certain it is, that foreign nations will know and view it exactly as
it is; and they will act toward us accordingly. If they see that
our national government is efficient and well administered, our
trade prudently regulated, our militia properly organized and
disciplined, our resources and finances discreetly managed, our
credit re-established, our people free, contented, and united, they
will be much more disposed to cultivate our friendship than provoke
our resentment. If, on the other hand, they find us either
destitute of an effectual government (each State doing right or
wrong, as to its rulers may seem convenient), or split into three or
four independent and probably discordant republics or confederacies…
…perhaps played off against each other… what a poor,
pitiful figure will America make in their eyes! How liable would
she become not only to their contempt but to their outrage, and how
soon would dear-bought experience proclaim that when a people or
family so divide, it never fails to be against themselves.”

I put forth the observation that many nations are now currently taking our measure and are effectively finding the latter part of the statement to be true.