Included here is an excerpt from Hamilton’s thoughts on immigration. They were offered at a time when the “path to citizenship” took fourteen years. In the quoted segment, one sees Hamilton’s political realism at work.  Hamilton even uses Jefferson’s own book, Notes on Virginia, to show how newcomers remain deeply attached to the land of their birth. The President, who earlier embraced limited immigration, had obviously changed his view.  This, Hamilton believed, was detrimental to the nation.

“The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias, and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family.

“The opinion advanced in the Notes on Virginia is undoubtedly correct, that foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners. They will also entertain opinions on government congenial with those under which they have lived; or, if they should be led hither from a preference to ours, how extremely unlikely is it that they will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, so essential to real republicanism? There may, as to particular individuals, and at particular times, be occasional exceptions to these remarks, yet such is the general rule. The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.

“The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils. It has been often likely to compromise the interests of our own country in favor of another. The permanent effect of such a policy will be, that in times of great public danger there will be always a numerous body of men, of whom there may be just grounds of distrust; the suspicion alone will weaken the strength of the nation, but their force may be actually employed in assisting an invader.

“In the infancy of the country, with a boundless waste to people, it was politic to give a facility to naturalization; but our situation is now changed. It appears from the last census that we have increased about one third in ten years; after allowing for what we have gained from abroad, it will be quite apparent that the natural progress of our own population is sufficiently rapid for strength, security, and settlement. By what has been said, it is not meant to contend for a total prohibition of the right of citizenship to strangers, nor even for the very long residence which is now a prerequisite to naturalization, and which of itself goes far towards a denial of that privilege. The present law was merely a temporary measure adopted under peculiar circumstances, and perhaps demands revision. But there is a wide difference between closing the door altogether and throwing it entirely open; between a postponement of fourteen years, and an immediate admission to all the rights of citizenship. Some reasonable term ought to be allowed to enable aliens to get rid of foreign and acquire American attachments; to learn the principles and imbibe the spirit of our government; and to admit of a probability at least, of their feeling a real interest in our affairs. A residence of not less than five years ought to be required.

“If the rights of naturalization may be communicated by parts, and it is not perceived why they may not, those peculiar to the conducting of business and the acquisition of property, might with propriety be at once conferred, upon receiving proof, by certain prescribed solemnities, of the intention of the candidates to become citizens; postponing all political privileges to the ultimate term. To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens, the moment they put foot in our country, as recommended in the message, would be nothing less than to admit the Grecian horse into the citadel of our liberty and sovereignty.”

Alexander Hamilton (Lucius Crassus), “Examination of Jefferson’s Message to Congress of December 7, 1801,” viii, January 7, 1802, in Henry Cabot Lodge, ed., The Works of Alexander Hamilton, Vol. 8 (New York: Putnam’s, 1904).

William G. (Bill) Chrystal is a scholar/performer of Alexander Hamilton and John Adams.  He is the author of Hamilton by the Slice: Falling in Love with Our Most Influential Founding Father and the editor of Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton: In Their Own Words. Both are available at Amazon.com.  Bill’s website is www.William-G-Chrystal.com.

The post Alexander Hamilton and Immigration appeared first on The Federalist Papers.

Get a FREE copy of “Gouverneur Morris” by Theodore Roosevelt

The creators of our great republic had both the temptations and the shortcomings of all men, combined with the talents and idealism of the truly great. Among them, no Founding Father demonstrates the combination of temptations and talents quite so vividly as the least known of the greats, Gouverneur Morris.

His story is one that should be known by every American — after all, he drafted the Constitution, and his hand lies behind many of its most important phrases. Yet he has been lost in the shadows of the Founders who became presidents and faces on our currency. Morris’s story is not only crucial to the Founding, it is also one of the most entertaining and instructive of all.

He was a witty, peg-legged ladies’ man. He was an eyewitness to two revolutions (American and French) and lost friends to the guillotine. He gave New York City its street grid and New York State the Erie Canal. His keen mind and his light, sure touch helped make our Constitution the most enduring fundamental set of laws in the world.

In his private life, he suited himself; pleased the ladies until, at age fifty-seven, he settled down with one lady; and lived the life of a gentleman, for whom grace and humanity were as important as birth. He kept his good humor through war, mobs, arson, death, and two accidents that burned the flesh from one of his arms and cut off one of his legs below the knee.

To download for future reading please right mouse click, then click save to download – Gouverneur-Morris-by-Theodore-Roosevelt

The post Gouverneur Morris appeared first on The Federalist Papers.

Thomas Jefferson may have been the first of our Founding Fathers to look deep into the past to search out the “ancient principles” that would serve as the foundation of our republican form of government. Several of the Founders soon joined in the pursuit including fellow Virginian James Madison, John Adams, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, George Wythe, James Wilson, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay. These men not only became widely read but they shared their findings and ideas in letters and personal conversations. It took them 25 years of development before the “ancient principles” resulted in the Constitution of the United States.

No doubt, these great minds would be perplexed by how the modern assessment that incorrectly places communism at the extreme left and fascism at the extreme right – as if they were opposites. In truth, they are different names for comparable forms of despotism – the police state. The Founders would place them at the same end of the political spectrum – despotism.

The Founders used a much different scale when they measured forms of government: too much government or too little government were the extremes. In political terms, the extreme of too much government would be tyranny while the extreme of too little government equates to anarchy. These men loathed tyranny but they considered anarchy to be even more deleterious. The Founders felt their objective should be to discover the formula for a form of government that would be under the control of the people.

These men also understood how “the pendulum swings” between the political extremes over the course of history – between tyranny and anarchy. George Washington understood this process and refused to be made king while pleading with his unpaid army to be patient with Congress. Colonel Lewis Nicola brazenly proposed, in a letter to May 22, 1782, that Washington become King of the United States. The general found the suggestion abhorrent and admonished his subordinate:

“I am much at a loss to conceive what part of my conduct could have given encouragement to an address which to me seems big with the greatest mischiefs that can befall my Country. If I am not deceived in the knowledge of myself, you could not have found a person to whom your schemes are more disagreeable; at the same time in justice to my own feelings I must add, that no Man possesses a more sincere wish to see ample justice done to the Army than I do, and as far as my powers and influence, in a constitutional way extend, they shall be employed to the utmost of my abilities to effect it, should there be any occasion. Let me conjure you then, if you have any regard for your Country, concern for yourself or posterity, or respect for me, to banish these thoughts from your Mind, and never communicate, as from yourself, or any one else, a sentiment of the like Nature.”[i]

Washington understood the goal of the other Founders and realized they must learn how to prevent the pendulum from swinging to monarchy. As he was preparing to disband the Continental Army at Newburgh, the general wrote to the governors of the states on June 8, 1783:

“It is only in our united Character as an Empire, that our Independence is acknowledged, that our power can be regarded, or our Credit supported among Foreign Nations. The Treaties of the European Powers with the United States of America, will have no validity on a dissolution of the Union. We shall be left nearly in a state of Nature, or we may find by our own unhappy experience, that there is a natural and necessary progression, from the extreme of anarchy to the extreme of Tyranny; and that arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of Liberty abused to licentiousness.”[ii]

Jefferson was watching the developments from Paris while acting as minister for the Confederation and was frustrated by the events. He wrote to William Stephens Smith from Paris on February 9, 1788:

“We are now vibrating between too much and too little government, & the pendulum will rest finally in the middle.”[iii]

James Iredell of North Carolina, destined to be one of the first Justices on the Supreme Court, was a strong supporter of independence. He also had a firm understanding of the scale used to measure forms of government. During debate at the North Carolina Ratifying Convention on July 30, 1788, Iredell stated:

“There are two extremes equally dangerous to liberty. These are tyranny and anarchy. The medium between these two is the true government to protect the people. In my opinion, this Constitution is well calculated to guard against both these extremes.”[iv]

James Wilson

James Wilson of Pennsylvania, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and a driving force in the writing of the Constitution, was soon to join James Iredell on the Supreme Court. He also understood the yardstick used to measure forms of government:

“Liberty and happiness have a powerful enemy on each hand; on the one hand tyranny, on the other licentiousness [anarchy]. To guard against the latter, it is necessary to give the proper powers to government; and to guard against the former, it is necessary that those powers should be properly distributed.”[v]

During debate at the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention, Fayette delegate John Smilie, agreed with Wilson in this statement:

“I agree likewise with him, Sir, that it is, or ought to be, the object of all governments, to fix upon the intermediate point between tyranny and licentiousness; and therefore, it will be one of the great objects of our enquiry, to ascertain how far the proposed system deviates from that point of political happiness.”[vi]

During debate at the Virginia Ratifying Convention, Governor Edmund Jennings Randolph took issue with the proposed Constitution and spoke, on June 6, 1788, in favor of limiting the general government with a small number of powers. Delegate George Nicholas, a friend of James Madison, addressed the governor by warning about granting too much or too little power:

“I believe this, sir, is a new idea in politics: — powers, being given for some certain purpose, ought to be proportionate to that purpose, or else the end for which they are delegated will not be answered. It is necessary to give powers, to a certain extent, to any government. If a due medium be not observed in the delegation of such powers, one of two things must happen: if they be too small, the government must moulder and decay away; if too extensive, the people must be oppressed. As there can be no liberty without government, it must be as dangerous to make powers too limited as too great.”[vii]

Alexander Hamilton, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention from New York, would conspire with James Madison and John Jay on a series of essays to inform the people of that state about the proposed Constitution. Those 85 essays were eventually published in most of the states and are still studied today: The Federalist Papers. In Federalist 26, Hamilton wrote about restraining legislative authority:

“IT WAS a thing hardly to be expected that in a popular revolution the minds of men should stop at that happy mean which marks the salutary boundary between POWER and PRIVILEGE, and combines the energy of government with the security of private rights. A failure in this delicate and important point is the great source of the inconveniences we experience, and if we are not cautious to avoid a repetition of the error, in our future attempts to rectify and ameliorate our system, we may travel from one chimerical project to another; we may try change after change; but we shall never be likely to make any material change for the better.”[viii]

As Hamilton intimated, the Founders understood they were trailblazers for a unique form of governance.

The post The Miracle of the United States – Discovering Ancient Principles appeared first on The Federalist Papers.

Get a FREE copy of “The Hand of God in American History” by Robert E. Thompson

The more thoroughly a nation deals with its history, the decidedly will it recognize and own an overruling Providence therein, and the more religious a nation it will become; while the more superficially it deals with its history, seeing only secondary causes and human agencies, the more irreligious will it be.

If the history of any nation is the development of the latent possibilities existing in its special nature, it is also the record of Divine Providence furnishing place and scope for that development, creating its opportunities and guiding its progress.

History is not a string of striking episodes, with no other connection but that of time. It is rather the working out of a mighty system, by means of regularly defined principles as old as creation, and as infallible as divine wisdom. With this truth in view, we approach our chosen theme – The Hand of God in American History.

To download for future reading please right mouse click, then click save to download – Hand-of-God-in-American-History

The post The Hand of God in American History appeared first on The Federalist Papers.

How much did the Founding Fathers worry about what they called “general warrants,” or broad-based searches not prompted by reasonable evidence of criminal activity? Admittedly, the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights could never have fathomed the technological advances behind cell phones and the internet that have presented the opportunity for such massive technological snooping. Nor could they have envisioned terrorists’ capabilities of wreaking massive death and destruction with weapons ranging from airplanes to nuclear bombs.

Even so, the fear of the arbitrary use of searches, seizures, and arrests, was ever-present among America’s Founders. The dread of this species of government tyranny led ultimately to the adoption of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which states that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

A number of early state constitutions and bills of rights also prohibited general warrants and unreasonable searches and seizures, reflecting fears of British investigations and arrests of Patriots during the lead-up to independence. Indeed, a month before the Declaration of Independence was issued in July 1776, the Virginia Declaration of Rights’ 10^th section deplored any searches not prompted by compelling evidence, and called general warrants “grievous and oppressive.”

When the proposed Constitution was framed and sent out for ratification in 1787 (with no Bill of Rights attached yet), the absence of a provision against general warrants caused major concern. A frequently-reprinted editorial by “A Son of Liberty” warned that the unamended Constitution opened the door for citizens to have their property searched, “their private papers seized, and themselves dragged to prison. . .whenever the fear of their lordly masters shall suggest that they are plotting mischief against their arbitrary conduct.”

Patrick Henry, the most influential Antifederalist critic of the Constitution, similarly demanded an amendment that would ban “general warrants to search suspected places, or seize persons not named, without evidence of the commission of fact.” Accordingly, in 1788 Virginia became one of several states to propose a constitutional amendment making citizens secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. Henry and his allies hoped that this amendment (and others) would be added prior to ratification, but he had to settle for trusting James Madison to push the Bill of Rights through the First Congress, which Madison did.

Even if the digital revolution and “big data” were not on the Founders’ horizon, they still laid down basic principles that can help guide us on the NSA controversy. Yes, the Constitution empowered the national government to “provide for the common defense,” and surely one of the government’s key duties today is to discover and disrupt terrorist plots. However, the Founders also knew that any power given (or grabbed) by the government was easily susceptible to abuse.

Few among us would balk at the government energetically pursuing actual terrorist suspects. But the NSA revelations confirm that since 9/11, the American government has become a gargantuan surveillance state with dangerously few limitations. I am confident that NSA operatives are, by and large, really intent on stopping terrorists. But as we see in today’s Middle East, the term “terrorists” can easily morph into a term for one’s political enemies. How much would it take for NSA-style surveillance to turn its focus to journalists (see Fox News’s James Rosen), opposition politicians, advocacy groups, and ordinary citizens who fall out of favor with our all-seeing national government?

Thomas S. Kidd is professor of history at Baylor University and the author of Patrick Henry: First Among Patriots.

The post The NSA Controversy, the Founding Fathers, and the Fourth Amendment appeared first on The Federalist Papers.

Get a FREE copy of “The Letters of Silence Dogood” by Benjamin Franklin

In 1722 at the age of 16, Ben Franklin was working as an apprentice to his older brother, James, a Boston printer. Young Ben Franklin never got anything he wrote published so he wrote 14 letters under the assumed name of a woman, Silence Dogood. He secretly slipped each letter under the door of the print shop of the New England Courant in the cloak of darkness. James decided the letters were definitely suitable for publication. For us today, the letters give a good insight into the time and the man who wrote them.

The letters poked fun at various aspects of life in colonial America, such as the drunkenness of locals, religious hypocrisy, and the persecution of women. Silence Dogood even had views about the fashion for hoop petticoats. “She” was particularly fond of ridiculing Harvard. She complained that it had been ruined by corruption and elitism, and that most of its students learned nothing there except how to be conceited.

The readers of the Courant thought she was a charming woman. So charming, in fact, that a few of the male readers wrote in, upon learning that she was single, and offered to marry her. Unfortunately for her would-be suitors, as we know, Silence Dogood did not exist!

Franklin concealed his authorship of the letters from his brother. But he was pleased to listen in as his brother and his friends approvingly discussed that first letter and decided to place it on the front page of the paper.

Franklin wrote the fourteen Silence Dogood letters between April 2nd and October 8th, 1722. When he stopped writing the letters, his brother placed an ad in the paper in an attempt to find out who the mysterious Silence Dogood really was. When Ben Franklin confessed to his brother that he was the author, his brother was furious. Soon after, Ben Franklin left his apprenticeship and went to seek his fortune in Philadelphia.

To download for future reading please right mouse click, then click save to download –Letters-of-Silence-Dogood

The post The Letters of Silence Dogood appeared first on The Federalist Papers.

257 of you replied and the comments below are representative of what most of you had to say about this issue:

• Without borders and significant border control no country would survive as the country they were prior to “open borders” as one characteristic of a country is that they have territorial boundaries and borders under close control. Managing those borders is the key to the on-going quality of that or any country.  We must maintain secure control of our boundaries and borders, whether they are under constant challenge or not is another issue. On the other hand a policy of “closed borders” may be deemed too harsh. Secure the borders rationally and realistically then we’ll talk about what constitutes reasonable and rational access to citizenship.
• It’s a slap in the face to my family who migrated here from Central America the legal way and worked their whole lives for citizenship. My great-grandmother earned her citizenship not long before she passed away, and she was so proud. Don’t take that away from those who worked so hard.
• No country on the planet allows as open borders as we do. It is a matter of the rule of law, if we don’t respect that then why make laws at all? People who want to come here and have respect for laws can’t, but those that have no respect for the law are welcomed? Laws should mean something! We tried amnesty in 1986 and look where we are now? We have a right, actually a responsibility to regulate our borders. It’s not a racist thing it’s a law thing.
• Our democratic system was, and is not capable of absorbing all of the illegal’s that want to become citizens by just waving the wand around the DNC. The system was designed that people from foreign countries that want to become a US Citizen has to go through a period of learning on how to be a Citizen. No wand waving can fix that either. Without a secure border, and that is 100% secure, all other talk about illegals is moot, and should not take place. Protecting our borders should be priority one (1) for any administration.
• My wife is Asian, from Laos. She is here legally. It has cost us nearly $5,000 to make that happen, and she is still not a permanent resident. The paper work has been done, countless hours of it, but she now awaits an interview for her change of status (permanent green card). I won’t bore y’all with the details other than to say, it pisses me off that as a full fledged citizen, born and raised in the United States of America, served in the US Navy, and never been to jail, my wife and I must go through the abusive process to get her legal papers in order whereas they are considering exempting all of the illegals from any process. It’s WRONG!
• Giving amnesty and citizenship to those who break the law is the best way I know of to get 30 or 40 million more people to break the law to get into this country.
• Many of our forefathers were immigrants from other countries, most all occupy a space on the face of the earth. These people came here because America was a land of promise and they immigrated LEGALLY. Why should we reward these people who have disrespected our borders, broken our laws, partaken of the hard earned tax dollars of US citizens through welfare, with amnesty. First every immigrant was required to learn English before entering school, make English the official language. Second, close the borders. Finally deport any that are here and force them to become American citizens the right way.
• I have fond memories of the days when our immigration laws were followed to the T with lots of agents all over the country checking ID’s and making sure all foreigners working in the US had the proper papers! Our country was a great country and laws were followed carefully—sadly those days are long gone and our country is a disaster now thanks to all those who don’t stand up for the laws of our country!
• It is true we are a country of immigrants BUT we are also a country of laws!!! It makes no sense to reward people that break the law. It is a slap in the face to the people that came here the right way!!!
• Kind of like paying a bank robber a reward for turning himself in.
• My grandparents on both sides came through Ellis Island, legally, with sponsored family waiting for them to make sure they learned the law, the language, and get a job. They couldnt have any health issues either. Why isn’t there another ‘Ellis Island’ for those coming to America today? The same rules should apply.

Overall the vast majority of you thought that illegal immigrants should NOT be rewarded with a path to citizenship. Many of you told us stories about your families and their struggles to become American citizens. I was actually surprised to see very little support for immigration reform.

Why do you think Washington is so focused on this issue when most Americans either oppose it or have other priorities for government, like the economy, jobs, deficit spending, etc?  Please comment below…

The post Should Illegal Immigrants Be Rewarded With A Path to Citizenship? appeared first on The Federalist Papers.

John Quincy Adams was already a distinguished diplomat at age thirty when his father John Adams became the second president.

He served as minister to the Dutch Republic. Prussia, Great Britain, and Russia and later he negotiated treaties that ended the War of 1812 and gained the Florida Territory from Spain.

As secretary of state under Monroe. Adams helped frame the Monroe Doctrine, a warning against European interference in the Americas, which still guides U.S. foreign policy. His four years as the sixth U.S. president were an anticlimax — the brilliant diplomat proved to be unbending and unpopular.

Rather than retire, ex-president Adams was elected to the House of Representatives, where he served for seventeen years, and advocated fairer treatment for Native Americans, an end to slavery, and recognition of women’s rights.

To download for future reading please right mouse click, then click save to download – Life-of-President-John-Quincy-Adams

The post The Life of President John Quincy Adams appeared first on The Federalist Papers.

A few days ago we asked  you what you thought about the Hayward, CA school that is having a “Toy Gun Buyback”  in order to teach young children about the dangers of guns and gun violence.

390 of you replied and the comments below are representative of what most of you had to say about this issue:

• Stupid … Only law abiding children will participate … Non-law abiders will keep there guns … It’ll only lead to an armament gap on the playgrounds
• This has got to be the most stupid thing ever. I think the gun buy-backs are bad enough, but this just plain nonsense.
• Wouldn’t it be better to teach the children gun safety?
• This idea is preposterous. This is a parents job. The school’s job is to educate not indoctrinate. When we finally get into the top 5 in science and math, not to mention computer programing – give me a call.
• I think it is the responsibility of the parents to educate a child in the importance of safety when dealing with any and everything in the real world. That’s my job as a Mom and a parent and if the school would have tried to teach my child what is right and wrong I would have freaked out on them and told them to mind their own business. It is just another angle the government is taking to take responsibility away from a parent and convince a child they belong to the collective and you, the parent, are nobody.
• If I buy a toy gun for my kids I got it for a reason. There are so many types of toy guns are they talking about super soakers cap guns G.I. Joe guns seriously this is just lame.
• Boycott the buyback and take your kids OUT of the government controlled public schools.
• The collective indoctrination of our children….and apparently we are okay with it. We are voluntarily handed our kids over to the state. Escape. Teach your children. Home school.
• Kids have been playing with toy guns since they were invented….and when they didn’t have toys, they had fingers. Are they going to cut off fingers so kids don’t play guns with them? Suspend them for ten days for pointing ‘gun fingers’ at people? Ridiculous. First buy back programs for Halloween candy and now this. What’s the matter with kids being allowed to be kids???
• What a waste of humanity…… I cannot believe how stupid people are, for real!!!! Liberal progressives make me want to puke!!!! maybe they should buyback all the toilet paper so no one will TP the principle’s house, or buyback all the chewing gum so no one will stick it under the desks and tables and in little Suzie’s hair! Oh wait! Maybe they should buyback the nasty school lunches that are causing our children to be fat because they’re getting too many carbs and sugars!!!! Just stupidity at work, on the taxpayers’ dimes……. so glad I home school my kids. The gun range is our favorite extracurricular activity!
• When Batman’s guns are outlawed, only Jokers and Penguins will have guns…school districts sure are stupid for professing to be so educated aren’t they?
• It’s not the proper place to institute this sort of a “Political” statement. If the school insists on anti gun activities, they also need to be accepting of pro second amendment teachings as well. Not to mention, I’m in complete agreement with Delilah Massie, with the budget issues schools are facing, there are MUCH BETTER things the schools can be doing with the Taxpayers money.

Overall the vast majority of you thought the Toy gun Buyback program was the height of stupidity and another example of overreaching and indoctrination by public schools. Almost no-one defended the program because it is  indefensible, at least in my opinion.

In your opinion are programs like this “stupidity” or part of a larger plan to scare children away from guns a long term plan to erode our Second Amendment rights?  Please comment below…

The post Should Schools Offer “Toy Gun Buyback” Programs? appeared first on The Federalist Papers.

ABP News reports Huckabee’s remarks:

“You may not clap real loud for this, but at least hear me out and think about it and pray about it,” he said. “I think we need to recognize that it may be time to quit worrying so much about the tax code and start thinking more about the truth of the living God, and if it means that we give up tax-exempt status and tax deductions for charitable contributions, I choose freedom more than I choose a deduction that the government gives me permission to say what God wants me to say.”

Huckabee said it may be time for churches to say: “Keep your deductions. Keep the exemptions. We stand more faithful with what God would have us to say, and we choose our freedom more than our financial benefit.”

“I must be very honest and tell you; I have never given a dime to God that I gave solely because it was a tax decision,” Huckabee said. “And if you’ve got people in your church who are giving because it’s a tax decision, then they ought to keep their money. They need it more than God does.”

Separately Archbishop Charles J. Chaput who leads the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia writes:

“The current IRS scandal – involving IRS targeting of “conservative” organizations – also has a religious dimension. Selective IRS pressure on religious individuals and organizations has drawn very little media attention. Nor should we expect any, any time soon. But the latest IRS ugliness is a hint of the treatment disfavored religious groups may face in the future, if we sleep through the national discussion of religious liberty now.

The day when Americans could take the Founders’ understanding of religious freedom as a given is over. We need to wake up.”

What do you think, is the First amendment under attack by the current government? Should churches give up tax-exempt status so that Pastors can speak freely from the pulpit?

Comment below…

The post Is It Time for Churches to Abandon Tax-Exempt Status to Protect Religious Freedom? appeared first on The Federalist Papers.

The huge British force in Boston soon pulled out of the beleaguered city and put to sea. The destination was unknown to the Commander in Chief, General George Washington, but he surmised the English had their sights on a location that would be more pivotal: New York. Washington placed high value on New York and expressed his fears to Connecticut Governor Jonathon Trumbull in a March 14, 1776, plea for militia support:

“Since I did myself the honor to write you last, the enemy have embarked their troops on board a number of transports, and are now making a shameful retreat from Boston. Various are the conjectures of their destination, though most agree it is either for Halifax or New York. … The latter place seems by much the most probable. Be that as it may, New York is a post of infinite importance both to them and us, and much depends on priority of possession. I therefore entreat you, sir, immediately to throw two thousand men into that city, from the frontiers of Connecticut, to maintain the place till I can arrive there with the army under my command. The rifle regiment will march this day. Tomorrow a brigade will follow, and be succeeded by others as quick as possible.”[i]

In the meantime, Congress worked within its limited powers to bolster the general’s poorly trained and equipped army with more state militia troops. In his “Report on Canadian Affairs” written on June 14, 1776, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

“Resolved that letters be written to the Conventions of New Jersey & New York and to the Assembly of Connecticut recommending them to authorize the Commander in chief in the colony of New York, to call to the assistance of that colony (when necessity shall require it) such of the militia of those colonies as may be necessary; and to afford him such other assistance as the situation of affairs may require. And that it be further recommended to the Convention of New York to empower to said Commander in Chief to impress carriages and water craft when necessary for the public service, and also to remove ships and other vessels in Hudson’s and in the East rivers for the purpose of securing them from the enemy.”[ii]

As the members of the Continental Congress were officially voting approval of the Declaration, General Washington was bracing for the impending British assault. Despite his pleas, his forces continued to be poorly equipped. It was a problem that would plague the general for the duration of the war. On July 4^th, he wrote to General Artemas Ward for aid:

“The distress we are in for want of Arms induces me again to urge your sending on all such as can possibly be spared with the greatest expedition. The enemy have landed under cover of their Ships and have taken possession of Staten Island, from which in all probability they will soon make a descent upon us.”[iii]

He wrote to John Hancock, the President of the Continental Congress, and pleaded for the Continental forces in Boston to be dispatched to reinforce his outgunned volunteer army in New York:

“I am sorry to inform you, that from a variety of Intelligence his apprehensions appear to be just, and to be fully confirmed. Nor have I reason to expect, but that the supplies from the other two Governments, Connecticut and New Hampshire, will be extremely slow and greatly deficient in number. As it now seems beyond Question, and clear to demonstration, that the Enemy mean to direct their Operations and bend their most vigorous Efforts against this Colony and will attempt to Unite their two Armies, that under General Burgoyne, and the one arrived here. I cannot but think the expedient proposed by that Gentleman is exceedingly just and that the Continental Regiments now in Massachusetts Bay, should be immediately called from thence and be employed, where there is the strongest reason to believe their aid will be indispensably necessary. The expediency of the Measure I shall submit to the consideration of Congress, and will only observe as my Opinion, that there is not the most distant prospect of an attempt being made where they now are, by the Enemy, and if there should, that the Militia that can be assembled upon the shortest Notice, will be more than equal to repel it; They are well armed, resolute and determined, and will instantly oppose any Invasion that may be made in their own Colony.”[iv]

Jefferson wrote home to Virginia about the impending attack, the status of General Washington’s fledgling army, and the general’s request for more troops. On August 13, 1776, he wrote to Edmund Pendleton:

“By Saturday’s post the General wrote us that Lord Howe had got (I think 100) flat bottomed boats alongside, and 30 of them were then loaded with men; by which it was concluded he was preparing to attack, yet this is Tuesday and we hear nothing further. The General has by his last return, 17,000 some odd men, of whom near 4000 are sick and near 3000 at out posts in Long Island, etc. So you may say he has but 10,000 effective men to defend the works of New York. His works, however, are good and his men in spirits, which I hope will be equal to an addition of many thousands. He had called for 2000 men from the flying camp which were then embarking to him and would certainly be with him in time even if the attack was immediate.”[v]

As the British continued to position their land forces, Washington wrote to the New York legislature on August 17, 1776, in an effort to prepare them for what he knew to be inevitable:

“When I consider that the City of New York, will in all human probability very soon be the Scene of a bloody Conflict; I cannot but view the great Numbers of Women, Children and infirm Persons remaining in it, with the most melancholy concern. When the Men of War passed up, the River, the Shrieks and Cries of these poor Creatures, running every way with their Children, was truly distressing and I fear will have an unhappy effect, on the Ears and Minds of our young and inexperienced Soldiery. Can no Method be devised for their removal? Many doubtless are of Ability to move themselves; but there are others in a different Situation. Some Provision for them afterwards, would also be a Necessary consideration. It would relieve me from great anxiety, if your Honble. Body would Immediately deliberate upon it and form and execute some plan for their removal and relief; In which I will co-operate and assist to the utmost of my Power.” [vi]

By the end of August 1776, disaster was imminent. A massive British land force, backed with the largest naval fleet in the world at that time, was assembled on Staten Island. Washington had warned Congress that he would not be able to satisfactorily defend New York but the Congress lacked the funds or capability to generate the needed money and the states were either unable or unwilling to give cash to Congress that was much needed at home.

Washington was forced to retreat from New York. It was a retreat that would take his ill-prepared army to Philadelphia and then frigid Valley Forge before their fortunes changed.

In the midst of the new nation’s first crisis, just when the best and brightest minds were needed at the head of Congress, Thomas Jefferson resigned. His colleagues were shocked by the sudden action but there were two imperatives that prompted his departure. First, his wife Martha’s lingering illness had become distressing. Second, there had been two deaths in his family. His mother, Jane, had passed away on March 31, 1776, while his one-year old daughter, Jane, had died the previous September.  Jefferson felt a significant burden to return to Monticello that he might manage his family’s needs.

Another motivating factor that prompted Thomas Jefferson’s departure from Congress was his perception that he would be of greater service in Virginia than in Congress. Virginia had adopted a constitution which Jefferson believed was abhorrent, and he had a constantly nagging thought that he was the one person who could rectify the situation. He harbored a belief that he might be able to lead Virginia, the largest state at that time, to become a model for the other states to emulate.

The Virginia legislature convened a new session in October 1776, and Thomas Jefferson was there with a massive portfolio of new bills. He wrote in his autobiography:

“I considered four of these bills, passed or reported, as forming a system by which every fibre would be eradicated of ancient or future aristocracy; and a foundation laid for a government truly republican.”[vii]

He then wrote about the four pieces of legislation which he felt were the most significant:

“The repeal of the laws of entail would prevent the accumulation and perpetuation of wealth, in select families, and preserve the soil of the country from being daily more and more absorbed in mortmain. The abolition of primogeniture, and equal partition of inheritances, removed the feudal and unnatural distinctions which made one member of every family rich, and all the rest poor, substituting equal partition, the best of all Agrarian laws. The restoration of the rights of conscience relieved the people from taxation for the support of a religion not theirs; for the establishment was truly of the religion of the rich, the dissenting sects being entirely composed of the less wealthy people; and these, by the bill for a general education, would be qualified to understand their rights, to maintain them, and to exercise with intelligence their parts in self-government; and all this would be effected, without the violation of a single natural right of any one individual citizen. To these, too, might be added, as a further security, the introduction of the trial by jury, into the Chancery courts, which have already ingulfed, and continue to ingulf, so great a proportion of the jurisdiction over our property.”[viii]

Even Jefferson’s closest friends argued that his legislative efforts were premature and should be postponed until the war was concluded. He strongly contended that delay would be a grievous error and the legislature should act then. Later he would write in “Notes On Virginia,” Query XVIIII:

“But is the spirit of the people an infallible, a permanent reliance? Is it government? Is this the kind of protection we receive in return for the rights we give up? Besides, the spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless. A single zealot may commence persecutor, and better men be his victims. It can never be too often repeated, that the time for fixing every essential right on a legal basis is while our rulers are honest, and ourselves united. From the conclusion of this war we shall be going down hill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves, but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of this war, will remain on us long, will be made heavier and heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion.”[ix]

The post The Miracle of the United States – America’s Formula for Freedom, Part 7 appeared first on The Federalist Papers.

The Air Force has issued a warning instructing Airmen not to use government computers to access news stories related to the Verizon and PRISM revelations. WND broke the story and reports:

WND has received an unclassified NOTAM (Notice to Airmen) that warns airmen not to look at news stories related to the data-mining scandal.

The notice applies to users of the Air Force NIPRNET (Non-classified Internet Protocol Router Network), which is the only way that many troops stationed overseas and on bases in the U.S. are able to access the Internet.

The last line of the executive summary states:

“Users are not to use AF NIPRNET systems to access the Verizon phone records collection and other related news stories because the action could constitute a Classified Message Incident.

Here’s a copy of the memo:  (more after )

In your opinion does this violate the first amendment rights of the airmen or is this simply prudent security on the part of the Air Force?

Comment below…

The post Air Force Warns Airmen Not To Read Scandal News appeared first on The Federalist Papers.

They also make remarks that using the logic of the founders is ultimately flawed because of technological advances and the rapid pace of change in America.  People will say that the Second Amendment is useless because ordinary Americans, even with AR-15’s, can NOT defend themselves against the American military.

The true meaning of the Second Amendment was for the States to have citizen militias and for the general populous to have military type weapons. Our founders were suspicious of government and standing armies; this is precisely why the Second Amendment was added to the Constitution in 1791. Popular to contrary belief the founders and their beliefs are still relevant today. Natural Rights and good government have not changed because of technology or because 240 years have passed since the signing of the Declaration of Independence.  This multi-part collection of essay’s will look at discuss our history as a Union of independent sovereign states and how all this relates to us today as our Union has pulled up to a crossroad in the recent years.

Is State Sovereignty relevant today in 2013?

To answer this, we first must understand that meaning behind State Sovereignty and how it relates to the United States of America.  A simple Google search can provide a decent answer, Wikipedia stated, “A sovereign state is a political organization with a centralized government that has supreme independent authority over a geographic area.”[1] Now I would not encourage people to use Wikipedia for any meaningful research but a simple definition can be found throughout the use of this particular website. Today many people substitute the word Nation or Country for State.  Many countries around the world are described as a Nation-State but there is much debate to what comprises an actual Nation-State.  The Merriam Webster dictionary states, “form of political organization under which a relatively homogeneous people inhabits a sovereign state; especially: a state containing one as opposed to several nationalities.” [2] This is why many people would not consider Great Britain a nation-state because there are many types of people and even countries in the United Kingdom.  The United States is in the same position and we are NOT a Nation-State because of our unique history relevant to our founding.

European exploration led to colonization of many parts of the world including the east coast of North America. These colonies eventually evolved into the thirteen English colonies that we all learn about in school and eventually rise up in revolt the British crown in the 1770s. The formation of these events is critical to our discussion of state sovereignty. As the crisis between the Colony of Massachusetts exploded after the Boston Tea Party and the passage of the Intolerable Acts in 1773/1774, each colony decided to convene a general Congress to discuss the situation. This led to the First Continental Congress and each colony selected their OWN delegates to our first organization to assist in the cooperation between the colonies.  It’s important to understand that the colonies created the First Continental Congress and any power that the Congress might assume had to be given to them by the individual colonies. The first congress ended up with no real action besides the adaptation of Declaration of Rights and Grievances that condemned the British activities in Boston.[3]

The Second Continental Congress met in May 1775 after the first shots of the War of Independence were fired at Lexington and Concord. The colonies once again sent delegates with their instructions for the Congress and how to deal with the British threat in Massachusetts. The issue of Independence grew more loudly as May turned into June 1776 and the supporters of a more radical approach took control of the Congress.  Early in 1776 Patriots of North Carolina took control of their colony and effectively declared independence from Great Britain. The delegates from North Carolina were instructed to discuss independence with the other delegates in Philadelphia.[4]  Virginia quickly followed suit and declared their support for independence in May 1776. These colonies were taking steps and becoming separate States that decided to cooperate with each other to gain Independence from Great Britain.  In June of 1776, Richard Henry Lee presented the Lee Resolution to Congress, “That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states…”[5] Congress delayed the vote on Independence until July 2^nd, 1776 to ensure time that all the delegates were able to get instructions from their colonial governments.  The Lee Resolution was approved on July the second and the Declaration of Independence was approved on July the fourth.

Now what does all this mean to us today? Our own history clearly shows that the individual colonies – now States – granted the Second Continental Congress the power to declare independence for all thirteen of the colonies. The Lee Resolution was authorized by Virginia and then delivered to Congress and many delegates needed instructions from this own colonies in order to decide on the next course of action.  Shortly after Independence, the States created the first general or central government of the United States called the Articles of Confederates.  Later on the States created our federal government with the passage and ratification of the United States Constitution. My next part will discuss the dynamics of the New Nation era, where we as a Union of States transformed from a confederacy under the Articles to a federal style of government under the Constitution.

The States and their people have been the instruments that created this group of individual states into the Union known as the United States of America. There is no American Nation but instead we have an American Union of fifty individually Sovereign States that have agreed to cooperate of the business provided to it by the Federal Constitution. This is why State Sovereignty is relevant today and our fellow citizens must not disregard the information because it happened in 1776. The same issues apply – the States clearly have the right to govern themselves besides the powers that were delegated to the Federal government in the Constitution.  The first step is that we must not call America a nation-state, state, country, or nation because that is clearly not true. Our history of Independence proves that without a doubt. We are a Union of American States that united all States that are important to every American in all States.  Think about it this way – we have 50 individual States (countries) that send representatives to Washington, D.C. to do the work that is necessary for everybody.

The post State Sovereignty Is It Relevant Today? – Part 1 appeared first on The Federalist Papers.

Get a FREE copy of “Sermon on the Freedom and Happiness of the United States” by Pastor Robert Davidson, originally preached October 5^th 1794

To take a comparative view of the nations of the earth, and learn in what respects some are happier than others ; and to examine what are the sources of national prosperity, and the true foundations of the strength and permanency of states; must be profitable at any times. It is with this view the words now read have been chosen.

And let none say, that we are carried away by the spirit of the times, to substitute mere political harangues in the place of the Gospel of Christ: for, as I observed, on a former occasion, the affairs of state, the management of public concerns, and the duties of citizens are not to be considered as topics foreign to the gospel, but the contrary; because the gospel views man in every condition in which man can be placed,—and especially as a member of society.

To download for future reading please right mouse click, then click save to download – Sermon-on-Freedom-And-Happiness

The post Sermon on the Freedom and Happiness of the United States appeared first on The Federalist Papers.

Get a FREE copy of “Great Debates In American History – Volume 1” edited by Marion M. Miller

Debate is law in the making, and legislation is the essence of political history. All great historians recognize this and have studied legislative debates. To what degree they have done so is probably the most accurate test of the value of their work.

Certainly it is so in the case of American historians, for the United States is in all political aspects a constitutional republic, and every important political event must be related to some legislative act, passed almost invariably after discussion, or to some constitutional function, which was originally a legislative act passed after extended debate.

Debate is thus the crucible of law, which is the metal of history. Almost all the results of Congressional discussion have been of the nature of compromises. Even when a minority has been overborne, its protest has, if not at once some time thereafter, become effective in toning down the original purpose of the majority.

In preparing these debates the editor has faithfully tried to follow the great principle of literary composition: “economy of the reader’s attention,” and to this end has endeavored to give only that information which is essential to a proper understanding of each issue, and to present this in the place most available to the reader, whether it be preceding, during the debate, or following it.

The work is not intended as a political history (although it is calculated to form a valuable supplement to such a history) and therefore only that information is presented which will connect the debate in hand with others related to it, and which will save the reader recourse to other works in order to understand the political situation at the time of the debate, and the unexplained allusions of the debaters. In this way it is believed that the ends of readability and reference are both attained.

To download for future reading please right mouse click, then click save to download – Great-Debates-Volume-One

The post Great Debates In American History – Volume 1 appeared first on The Federalist Papers.

The latest revelations about the NSA spy program are chilling. The Washington Post reports:

The National Security Agency and the FBI are tapping directly into the central servers of nine leading U.S. Internet companies, extracting audio and video chats, photographs, e-mails, documents, and connection logs that enable analysts to track foreign targets, according to a top-secret document obtained by The Washington Post.

The program, code-named PRISM, has not been made public until now. It may be the first of its kind. The NSA prides itself on stealing secrets and breaking codes, and it is accustomed to corporate partnerships that help it divert data traffic or sidestep barriers. But there has never been a Google or Facebook before, and it is unlikely that there are richer troves of valuable intelligence than the ones in Silicon Valley.

Equally unusual is the way the NSA extracts what it wants, according to the document: “Collection directly from the servers of these U.S. Service Providers: Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, Apple.”

London’s Guardian newspaper reported Friday that GCHQ, Britain’s equivalent of the NSA, also has been secretly gathering intelligence from the same internet companies through an operation set up by the NSA.

Essentially this means that all of our private communications are being collected, analyzed and processed by the government. Even the New York Times has had enough:

Within hours of the disclosure that the federal authorities routinely collect data on phone calls Americans make, regardless of whether they have any bearing on a counterterrorism investigation, the Obama administration issued the same platitude it has offered every time President Obama has been caught overreaching in the use of his powers: Terrorists are a real menace and you should just trust us to deal with them because we have internal mechanisms (that we are not going to tell you about) to make sure we do not violate your rights.

Those reassurances have never been persuasive — whether on secret warrants to scoop up a news agency’s phone records or secret orders to kill an American suspected of terrorism — especially coming from a president who once promised transparency and accountability.

The administration has now lost all credibility.

Even leading Democratic party strategists have had enough as evidenced by an editorial today from Julie Roginsky, a leading Democratic party strategist:

“We have arrived at a defining moment for the progressive movement in this nation.

The New York Times editorial board, which has generally given this president a lot of leeway throughout his career, wrote a scathing denunciation Friday of the Obama administration’s use of data mining, claiming that “the administration has now lost all credibility” on the issue of balancing civil rights with national security.

Every progressive with even a shred of moral consistency should side with the New York Times against the White House.

The events of the past month – from the Associated Press subpoena to the James Rosen search warrant to the revelation that our government has been indiscriminately collecting phone records data – have forced liberals to make a choice between complacency and outrage, between keeping silent because one of our own is in the White House and calling him out on betraying the principles for which we have fought for so long.”

My biggest fear is that if this program is allowed to continue, or even expand, that future administrations will use the data to punish their political opponents.

What do you think? Please comment below…

________________

Serious events are about to hit the US Economy. Do you know about the 37 food items that vanish first in a crisis? See how to get them in this video here: http://bit.ly/18yXJ1X

The post What Happened To The Fourth Amendment? appeared first on The Federalist Papers.

Is it any wonder that progressive left-wing people try to limit the right to bear arms? That is the question presented to you. Whenever a mass-shooting occurs like Columbine, Aurora or Newtown, the issue always arises on how such tragedies can be prevented. The arguments never really change; the Conservative side says tougher penalties should be in place for gun crimes, the Liberal side says “no one needs and AR-15” and “Weapons of war have no place on our streets.”

Going back to George Mason’s quote, can we not infer from people like Piers Morgan and Mike Bloomberg that what they really want is to disarm people? Their logic is that by taking away guns from people, the crime rates will go down and America will be safer. Take a look at cities like Chicago and Washington D.C. and you can obviously see that restricting people’s right to bear arms is self-defeating.

There is no question that these people do not want you and me to have firearms. However, what about the culture that the left creates to further advance that agenda? All we need to do is look at what is happening in the public school system. Let’s take a look at just a few examples of the insanity that happens in the public school system involving guns.

In March, 2013, a Maryland school boy, just 7 years old, was suspended for making his breakfast pastry into the shape of a gun. The school used the logic that it was menacing and threatening to other students, though no such panic ever occurred.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2013/03/05/pop-tart-gun-suspension-seriously-folks/

In May, 2013, a 6 year-old kindergarten student in Massachusetts was given detention and forced to apologize for bringing a Lego gun, no bigger than a quarter, on his school bus. Another student told the bus driver, and the driver claimed the student caused “quite a disturbance.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/29/6-year-old-given-detention-forced-to-apologize-after-bringing-this-seriously-tiny-plastic-gun-on-school-bus/

In April, 2013, in my home state of New York, a 10 year-old’s father had his pistol license suspended and his firearms were all but confiscated. Under advice of his counsel, he transferred all 15 of his pistols to a friend and all long barreled rifles to a gun shop to prevent his property from being confiscated. What was the offense? His son and another boy were allegedly talking about a water gun and a BB gun, possibly going to someone’s house with them.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/04/n-y-dads-pistol-license-suspended-over-something-his-10-year-old-son-said-and-it-could-be-8-years-before-he-gets-it-back/

The last case, some questioning would have been justified, but suspending his father’s pistol license and attempting to confiscate his firearms? Where is the logic in that? This last case is especially concerning to me, as it involved my county police department, and gives perspective on its view towards 2^nd amendment rights.

These cases all say something about the public school education system, and what kind of culture is being taught to American kids. Our Constitutional rights are not being taught to the kids; they are being shunned and taught as something dangerous.

In another story, a 5^th grade Philadelphia student made a piece of paper into the shape of a gun; when her fellow students saw it, they all started screaming “murderer!” at her. When she tried to explain it was not a gun, the teacher would not listen, and continued to reprimand her. Actions like this demonstrate the effects of the anti-gun culture create in public schools.

http://news.yahoo.com/philadelphia-girl-searched-berated-having-gun-made-paper-125401764.html

Seeing how anti-gun the public school system has become, what happens when these kids grow up and become the norm for society? Will they want to own guns and use them in self-defense, or even for sporting/hunting? Of course they will not. After years of a culture that demonizes the 2^nd amendment, these future adults will not only have no desire to own a gun, but attempt to force others not to own them as well. Going back to George Mason’s concept, will our government even have to disarm the people if they desired to enslave us, or we will have already disarmed ourselves?

What do you think? Do you agree or disagree with the author of this article’s conclusions? Why or why not? Comment below…

The post The Anti-Gun Culture in Public Schools appeared first on The Federalist Papers.

On July 4, 1776, the same day that independence from Great Britain was declared by the thirteen states, the Continental Congress named the first committee to design a Great Seal, or national emblem, for the country. Similar to other nations, The United States needed an official symbol of sovereignty to formalize and seal (or sign) international treaties and transactions. It took six years, three committees, and the contributions of fourteen men before the Congress finally accepted a design (which included elements proposed by each of the three committees) in 1782.i

The first committee consisted of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams.

As was mentioned in an earlier essay, Jefferson was one of several Founding Fathers – including Reverend Thomas Hooker who authored the 1649 constitution for Connecticut – who had discerned that the most absolute principles of representative government were those Moses taught to ancient Israel. He had also determined the Anglo-Saxons had implemented very nearly identical tenets of government.

It was determined, following short discussions, that the ancient Israelis and Anglo-Saxons should be symbolized on the Great Seal of the United States.

Benjamin Franklin gave this explanation of his vision for the portrayal of ancient Israel:

“Moses standing on the Shore, and extending his Hand over the Sea, thereby causing the same to overwhelm Pharaoh who is sitting in an open Chariot, a Crown on his Head and a Sword in his Hand. Rays from a Pillar of Fire in the Clouds reaching to Moses, to express that he acts by Command of the Deity. … Motto, Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.”ii

In an August 14, 1776, letter to his wife, Abigail, John Adams chronicled Jefferson’s recommendation:

“Mr. Jefferson proposed. The Children of Israel in the Wilderness, led by a Cloud by day, and a Pillar of Fire by night, and on the other Side Hengist and Horsa, the Saxon Chiefs, from whom We claim the Honour of being descended and whose Political Principles and Form of Government We have assumed.”iii

And Mr. Adams had a proposal of his own which he described to his wife:

“I proposed. The choice of Hercules, as engraved by Gribelin, in some editions of Lord Shaftesbury’s works. The hero resting on his club. Virtue pointing to her rugged mountain on one hand, and persuading him to ascend. Sloth, glancing at her flowery paths of pleasure, wantonly reclining on the ground, displaying the charms both of her eloquence and person, to seduce him into vice. But this is too complicated a group for a seal or medal, and it is not original.”iv

Jefferson wrote to Edmund Pendleton, who had served as President of the Virginia Convention which authorized Virginia’s delegates to propose a resolution to move for the break from Britain and creation of the Declaration, on August 13, 1776, with this admonishment to abolish the remnants of feudalism in the state so it could return to the ancient principles:

“Are we not better for what we have hitherto abolished of the feudal system? Has not every restitution of the ancient Saxon laws had happy effects? Is it not better now that we return at once into that happy system of our ancestors, the wisest and most perfect ever yet devised by the wit of man, as it stood before the eighth century?”v

So he could read their laws in the original form, Jefferson had studied the Anglo-Saxon language. He wrote to his mentor, George Wythe, on November 1, 1778:

“The extracts from the Anglo-Saxon laws, the sources of the Common law, I wrote in their original, for my own satisfaction; but I have added Latin, or liberal English translations.”vi

Congress took no immediate action to adopt an official seal. Two more committees were appointed before that body turned to its secretary, Charles Thomson, who had been a Latin master at a Philadelphia academy. He was given the recommendations of all three committees to come up with a new design.

Thomson used the eagle – this time specifying an American bald eagle – as the sole supporter on the shield. The shield had thirteen stripes, this time in a chevron pattern, and the eagle’s claws held an olive branch and a bundle of thirteen arrows. For the crest, he used Hopkinson’s constellation of thirteen stars. The motto was E Pluribus Unum, taken from the first committee, and was on a scroll held in the eagle’s beak.vii

An eagle holding symbols of war and peace has a long history, and also echoed the second committee’s themes. Franklin owned a 1702 emblem book, which included an eagle with olive branch and arrows near its talons, which may have been a source for Thomson.viii The arrows also mirror those in the arms of the Dutch Republic, the only country in Europe with a representative government at the time, which depicted a lion holding seven arrows representing their seven provinces.ix State currency may have provided further inspiration; a 1775 South Carolina bill showed a bundle of 13 arrows and a 1775 Maryland note depicted a hand with an olive branch of 13 leaves.x

On the reverse side, Thomson essentially kept a May 1782 design commissioned by Congress from 28-year old heraldic expert William Barton, but re-added the triangle around the Eye of Providence and changed the mottos to Annuit Cœptis and Novus Ordo Seclorum.xi Barton again changed the stripes and shield. He also changed the position of the eagle’s wings.

The final design was submitted to Congress on June 20, 1782 and was accepted the same day. Thomson included a page of explanatory notes, but no drawing was submitted. This remains the official definition of the Great Seal today:

“The Escutcheon is composed of the chief [upper part of shield] & pale [perpendicular band], the two most honorable ordinaries [figures of heraldry]. The Pieces, paly [alternating pales], represent the several states all joined in one solid compact entire, supporting a Chief, which unites the whole & represents Congress. The Motto alludes to this union. The pales in the arms

are kept closely united by the Chief and the Chief depends on that union & the strength resulting from it for its support, to denote the Confederacy of the United States of America & the preservation of their union through Congress.

“The colours of the pales are those used in the flag of the United States of America; White signifies purity and innocence, Red, hardiness & valour, and Blue, the colour of the Chief signifies vigilance, perseverance & justice. The Olive branch and arrows denote the power of peace & war which is exclusively vested in Congress. The Constellation denotes a new State taking its place and rank among other sovereign powers. The Escutcheon is born on the breast of an American Eagle without any other supporters [figures represented as holding up the shield] to denote that the United States of America ought to rely on their own Virtue.

“Reverse. The pyramid signifies Strength and Duration: The Eye over it & the Motto allude to the many signal interpositions of providence in favour of the American cause. The date underneath is that of the Declaration of Independence and the word s under it signify the beginning of the New American Æra, which commences from that date.”xii

The seal, in the form of a brass die, was used the first time by Secretary Thomson on September 16, 1782, to verify signatures on a document which authorized General George Washington to negotiate an exchange of prisoners.

Thomson remained the guardian of the Great Seal until our present federal government was established in 1789. Upon his decision to retire, President Washington directed him to deliver the Great Seal and other official items to the Department of Foreign Affairs, which maintained the Great Seal until the Department of State was created in September of that year. Washington wrote on July 24, 1789:

“You will be pleased, Sir, to deliver the Books, Records and Papers of the late Congress, the Great Seal of the Federal Union, and the Seal of the Admiralty, to Mr. Roger Alden, the late Deputy Secretary of Congress; who is requested to take charge of them until farther directions shall be given.”xiii

Since that time, all subsequent Secretaries of State have been responsible for applying the Great Seal to diplomatic documents.

On September 15, 1789, the United States Congress ordered “that the seal heretofore used by the United States in Congress assembled, shall be, and hereby is declared to be, the seal of the United States.”xiv

______________

[1] “The Great Seal of the United States” (PDF). U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Public Affairs, p. 3

[1] The Thomas Jefferson Papers, 1606-1827, Manuscript Division at the Library of Congress, Vol. 1, p. 494

[1] “Letters of John Adams, Addressed to His Wife,” Edited by His Grandson, Charles Francis Adams (Charles C. Little and James Brown: 1841) Vol. 1, p. 152

[1] ibid

[1] “The Writings of Thomas Jefferson,” Definitive Edition, Albert Ellery Bergh, Editor, The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association (1905) Vol. 4, p. 227

[1] “The Works of Thomas Jefferson,” Federal Edition, Editor: Paul Leicester Ford, (New York and London, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904-5) Vol. 2, p. 393

[1] “The Great Seal of the United States” pp. 5-6

[1] “The Arms of the USA — Blazon and Symbolism,” by Joseph McMillan, American Heraldry Society

The post The Miracle of the United States – America’s Formula For Freedom – Part 6 appeared first on The Federalist Papers.

Get a FREE copy of “The Life of Tecumseh” by Ethel T. Raymond

Tecumseh was a Shawnee chief born circa 1768 near present-day Springfield, Ohio. He opposed the United States and attempted to organize a confederation of tribes to resist white settlement.

During the closing decades of the 18th century, Indian lands west of the Appalachian Mountains were increasingly threatened by colonization. The boundary that Great Britain had tried to erect by the Quebec Act of 1774 was shattered by the American revolution, and in the following years the Americans extended their settlements, often at Indian expense. Indian resistance to this expansion resulted in three major battles over the Ohio country.

To download for future reading please right mouse click, then click save to download – The-Life-of-Tecumseh

The post The Life of Tecumseh appeared first on The Federalist Papers.

Patrick Henry, Patrick Henry: Life, Correspondence and Speeches,  Vol. I, p. 82

The post Patrick Henry, Righteousness Alone Can Exalt A Nation appeared first on The Federalist Papers.

Charles de Montesquieu, The Persian Letters, No. 95

The post Montesquieu, The Case For A Just War appeared first on The Federalist Papers.

John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Book III, Ch. 10, sec. 31

The post John Locke, Loose Words appeared first on The Federalist Papers.

The post received 15,127 “likes” and 537 comments. However more than half of those comments were in support of reciting the Pledge of Allegiance each day.

The comments below are representative of what many of you had to say about this issue:

YES – Children should recite the Pledge of Allegiance at the start of each school day

• We need patriotism and unity. Our country has fractured into groups of “African American”, “Native American”, “Latino American” Chinese American”, “Irish American” and so on.
  Forget the differences of skin color, what other country peoples families originated from. These kinds of groups bring nothing but division and racism. How about we just start being the melting pot we are and be “AMERICANS”!!!
• I do not pledge my allegiance to any President, government official, or government entity. I pledge my allegiance to the Republic and the preservation of the Constitutional principles it was founded upon. That is what the of pledge allegiance is all about; not a government or President such as the current one that places the Constitution in the same regards as toilet paper. If you truly understand freedom and liberty, and enjoy those freedoms and liberties, then there should be no problem pledging allegiance to the Republic that was Constitutionally designed to individually protect you and me from a runaway government like we have today.
• Even each Monday to start the week would be great. They must also be taught with curricula that doesn’t constantly undermine the history on the founding of the nation. By their high school graduation they should have a thorough working knowledge of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America. They must understand the importance of self reliance and the freedom to succeed and to fail allowed by a small, limited government.
• I graduated high school last year and I had to teach myself the most basic functions of our government. My school barely spent any time on the Constitution or my rights as a voter, but we spent over 3 weeks learning about evolution in science classes, and Islam and Buddhism in History classes. Our public school system is in need of a major overhaul.
• I am proud to be an American! I am proud to live in this great Nation and have the freedoms that we still have! Sure, our government is corrupt, but the corruption and moral downfall of this great country did not originate in the White House, but in the American homes. America’s government may be corrupt, but only because we allowed it!
• The majority in this country have let a few take away our freedoms that this country was founded on. The MAJORITY believe in God and patriotism. This is another case of political correctness gone amuck because the MAJORITY have kept quiet. Speak up fellow Americans!
• The Pledge of Allegiance is an agreement that they believe in what America is. It’s a Republic. A Republic isn’t the Government. It is the Constitution and the principles the founding fathers put forth. The Pledge by children is that they know what our country is about. If there is no teaching to the principles we hold dear, how long before we are a Nation divided? How long before tyranny takes over? How long before the institutions created to administer our Republic become dishonest? Oh, here we are! Yes, ALL children attending public schools need to be exposed to the Pledge of Allegiance
• Yes, but more importantly, they should be taught “why” they are reciting it. I recited it every day as a child but not one time did the teachers who were teaching me, teach me the dangers and threats of Communism or Totalitarianism. They didn’t even teach me that America was a Republic… and although I said those words every day, I had no idea what they meant. I didn’t get the honor and privilege of learning about our great country, until I joined the Tea Party. Now I have an insatiable desire to learn more and more history. Tea Party folks know a LOT of history and are willing to share their knowledge.

NO – Children should not recite the Pledge of Allegiance

• I used to think it should be mandatory, but now I think it’s just senseless indoctrination. Words mean nothing. Action’s what counts. Instead of just saying it, how about we toss out the government?! I’ll say “yes” when we are a true republic & “liberty & justice for all” becomes a reality.
• NO! They don’t understand what they are saying.
• My problems with the pledge of allegiance? A)It has you swear fealty to a flag and then to the government of the U.S.A, never the U.S itself. It’s a bit discriminatory against atheists. C) True Patriotism is the will to make one’s country better, not to say it is the best.
• Our Founders would have balked at a pledge of allegiance to the Federal government. They supported the States as sovereign.
• Nope. State indoctrination of the children.
• Indoctrination. It is socialist, and contains, an unconstitutional element. Why would you pledge allegiance to a tricolored piece of cloth anyway? How about making a pledge to the citizens, and constitution of the United States of America?

In summary it appears, that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance at the beginning of each school day has enormous support. Those who oppose it are a tiny minority but feel very passionate about their opposition.

One commenter wrote:

Since I am not in school, no one is compelling me to make a daily promise of allegiance to our government. If the Pledge is such a great idea, why not compel all adults to make a daily promise of allegiance to our government?

What do you think about that? Please comment below…

The post Should Children Recite the Pledge of Allegiance? appeared first on The Federalist Papers.

The principal purpose of the author, in preparing this volume, has been the presentation of a concise and accurate account of the events of the Indian wars in New England, with lists of officers, soldiers, military committees, scouts, and others engaged therein, as full and correct as possible.

Material has been drawn from all available sources, The official records of the three colonies, Massachusetts, Plymouth, and Connecticut; Rhode Island, as a non-combatant community, not being counted into the league. In addition to these sources, the Colonial Archives  have been diligently searched for unpublished documents, as well as the Registry, Probate, and Court Records, and documents of the several counties.

The basis, however, of the main body of the work, the services of the soldiers in Philip’s War, is drawn from the ancient accountbooks of Mr. John Hull, Treasurer-at-war of Massachusetts Colony, from 1675-1678.

To download for future reading please right mouse click, then click save to download – King-Philips-War

The post King Philips War appeared first on The Federalist Papers.

As with formation of the military-industrial complex, the rise of this self-perpetuating process  is fed by greed, power, and for some, the illusion of reform. It has grown because of major public indifference towards educating someone else’s children plus confusion spawned by propaganda about the quality of public schools. The trick has been keeping us reaching for “higher” quality education as judged by the standards set by the complex itself.

The problem produced is one the public knows as education “fads.” Industry experts and consultants have created, again and again, the next best tool to improve education and education vendors sell their products and services to those who most desperately want to do the best they can for their students — and now by law must prove they do.

Much of the public has been convinced that “government schools” cannot provide better education than private industry schools at public expense — this is privatization of services driven by the education-industrial complex itself.

The harm caused by this is lost instructional time — sometimes decades — as the public education system is constantly being jerked around directly as a result of harmful policy decisions influenced by education industry lobbyists.

Should blame rest on the government schools or the government officials in charge? Or would the public be better served if we quit playing the blame game until we more completely understand the story behind the quality of American schools.

Public schools are an institution dependent upon the ideals of a public trust —schools are accredited if they meet the quality standard. “The word accreditation is derived from the Latin credito (trust).” In 1871, “the University of Michigan began ‘accrediting’ secondary schools [high schools] entrusted with providing adequate preparation for university studies.”  Over time, the process which had originated in a public university was handed over to regional non-profit accreditation associations.

By 1940, these associations had completed a study (The Eight-Year Study or National Study of School Evaluation) and published the Secondary School Evaluation Criteria which served as “the instrument” for quality assurance and continuous improvement for our high schools. The Criteria was revised every ten years still following the basic findings of the original study. But in 1980, leaders with “postindustrial models of thought” changed our directives. By 1990, the basis of accreditation that had served our country well for 50 years ended with the last publication of the Criteria.

So when you look at the corporate “partners” for organizations such as the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), it should not leave anyone wondering why these officials can’t or won’t make the time to hear what the people say their schools need; plenty of organizations are paying for their ears. The first corporation listed for CCSSO (at the time of this publication) is a multinational, private, non-profit accreditation company called AdvanEd. They have purchased CITA (The Commission on International and Trans-Regional Accreditation) as well as having the North Central, Northwest, and Southern Accreditation Commissions of the United States as divisions under their operations.

I’m not saying these associations and corporations aren’t capable of doing some decent work; I’m saying our quality control of American education has been and continues to be out of the control of the American public. Is quality assurance now part of the Education –Industrial Complex?

As Ronald R. Cowell president of the Education Policy and Leadership Center stated, “There’s nothing new about the idea of private companies’ being involved in education. What is relatively new is the degree to which private companies are involved with public-policy issues” and that is precisely what defines The Education-Industrial Complex; its influence over law assures its own success, not our children’s best shot at it. And in the end, we all pay the price for under-performing schools.
In an article titled Today’s Education-Industrial Complex: Why aren’t schools an issue in the 2008 election?  Paul E. Peterson writes, “Universities are finding it easier to recruit top-level scientists and sophisticated social scientists from abroad rather than try to grow them at home.” And the same thing is playing out in immigration “reform” law by making it easier for industries to import foreign highly-skilled workers so we don’t need to improve our own schools.

Some have recognized that the education-industrial complex exists; all of us need to come to see that reality.

The accreditation of OUR “government schools” has lacked consistency and has excluded the public from its process or even knowledge of the basis for evaluations of schools. Are we to trust oversight of our schools to a nongovernmental, international agency? This is no passing fad.

All of this was created systematically in the same way peaceful takeovers always occur. Americans have heart and deeply held beliefs that can be tapped into with the right words. Accountability (responsibility), flexibility, and choice (freedom, freedom) were the callings of No Child Left Behind (NCLB – ESEA) — a perfect title. But that single law not only directed dollars to testing, data collection, and private service industries, it also joined with the military-industrial complex by writing in access to student information for military recruiting purposes. The current Obama Blueprint for ESEA Re-authorization also has privatization written all over it – in code. Think privatization of our schools is the best way to go?

What all this means for the U.S. depends on who we decide we can trust with the education of the masses. No Child Left Behind must be replaced. Who should govern our schools, how do we protect and serve our children, and how will we control the complex?

By using what we know works for America —a balance of power with the ultimate authority resting with the people — the people can push for “the instrument” of continuous improvement to be resurrected and written into law, if that is their choice.

What do you think? Please comment below…

The post The Rising Education-Industrial Complex appeared first on The Federalist Papers.