Jump to content
TedderVision
Sign in to follow this  
Bruce

The American Federalist

Recommended Posts

A Book About The Past, Written With The Present In Mind, That Shall Be Remembered In The Future

By: Mr. Jones of New York

"The good and honorable Mr. Tyson has written a masterpiece, penning an enlightened manifesto on how the past and classical experts in philosophy show that this grand experiment of ours must do to be sustainable and prosperous, not only for ourselves, but for the generations to come, that will read, learn, and remember us, either fondly for coming together under the ideas of those such as President Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and the good Mr. Tyson, or fighting and tearing each other apart as some, who did not support this government and have battled against those held in high regard, would have the citizens do under the philosophy of 'states rights'. May these essays of Mr. Tyson's, which undoubtedly are as wonderful as those Federalist Papers that helped form our current constitution, help mold the minds of our citizens, our lawmakers, our wonderful President, and our descendants.

  •  
Edited by LM32

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On The Matter Of Tariffs

By: Mr. Jones of New York

"These tough days ahead of us, our law makers have an extremely difficult challenge in front of them. There is the issue of how to establish our industry and create a striving economy without turning our backs on our allies and those who we now come to no longer bear arms against and where we hope a similar friendship shall grow. I must impose on our representatives to denounce that fiery temptress, as seldom as that happens among our leaders, known as Tariffs. While she presents an alluring offer of monetary gains while protecting our own citizens, by doing so we not only insult those who we must work and survive with as a world, but it also will lead to higher prices for the common folk and less money for both the citizens buying the products and those merchants that must work with the industries being protected. Our country must chase after the humble entity of Free Trade, as our best hope for a livable country, not only for the wealthy and educated, but also for those less off in the monetary sense."

Edited by LM32

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the Matter of Militia Organization

By: Mr. Clement of Pennsylvania

"The importance of a strong military is paramount to the success of a nation.  It was our grit and determination that won us our freedom and independence from Great Britain.  Just as a foreign power controlled us for many years, we must never allow a foreign power to control us again.  The threat is there.  The potential for servitude under another nation is not out of the question.  We should regulate our militia and ensure that every single American can be trained with a gun, can use a gun, and can operate militaristically at the drop of a dime.  For our protection against foreign powers, wild animals, violent Native Americans, and criminals, we have a duty to one another to be prepared.  We do this by promoting strong and organized militias.  We are going to use this model in Pennsylvania to keep our state strong and protected.  We advise other states to follow along with our example."

Edited by Doomhammer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the Need for Lower Business Taxes

By: Mr. Jones, Editor of The American Federalist

"This great state of New York is at risk of losing the businesses with which it has been so kindly blessed. While the revered and beloved Mr. Tyson has suggested that the state legislature protects the businesses born and operating within our borders and encouraged other businesses to come to this place, so as to invigorate and accelerate an economy that is growing, but not as rapidly as it could be, a member of our own party, which has proposed policies that this paper has previously railed against, wishes to slow our growth in fear of 'losing needed revenue'. The fault of this belief lays in the lack of faith in another great New York Federalist,  our dearest Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, who in conjuncture with our favored Mr. Tyson, has introduced a plan for the Federal Government to set the states on a strong foundation by absorbing their debts. This is why our paper endorses Mr. Tyson's suggestions to the New York legislature, and why we suggest that our fellow Federalists and our independent friends to adopt this measure."

Edited by LM32

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On House Federalist Leadership Battle

By: Mr. Jones, Editor of The American Federalist

"The battle for leadership of the Federalist Party in the House of Representatives has started. The two leading men are our very own distinguished Mr. Tyson of the New York Third District, a close follower of the famous Alexander Hamilton in economic ways, who has championed policies that this paper, and you, our dear readers, have strongly supported time after time, and another young star named Declan Owens from the great state of Virginia, home of the famous President Washington, but also of Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Madison. Both of these contenders are only 25 years old, but both have made a name for themselves so far in this young country. This paper, while acknowledging Mr. Owens as a steadfast man of good morals, has to endorse our good friend Mr. Tyson, as he has shown to be in lockstep with this paper and our readers on practically every issue. When asked about what he had to say on this topic, Mr. Tyson responded with, 'Mr. Owens is a good friend and either way the party will have a brilliant leader. I look forward to working with him in Congress.' This paper is expecting great things from the young Mr. Tyson and excited to see what he can do for the wonderful state of New York and hopefully the Federalist Party."

Edited by LM32
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New Weapon Sweeping the Nation

 By Mr. Jones, Editor of the American Federalist

"Tyson American Industries has recently gotten into the arms business with their new Tyson Air Rifle. This weapon is based off the rifle recently in use by the Austrian Army. Rumors are that the rifle can fire up to 30 times before needing to be primed again and has a range of more than 150 yards. Maybe it is time for some of our soldiers and some of our brave citizens to pick up the Tyson Air Rifle and move westward. Open land, new technology, adventure. What more could any man want? It's time to expand our borders and make this country great!"

Edited by LM32

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On Militias and the Right to Bear Arms for the Protection of Liberty

By Jay Johnstone of Massachusetts 

                  "Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance,   that the throne of every tyranny in. Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."

Edited by Shiggy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.

By Jay Johnstone of Massachusetts 

It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS.''

Of the different grounds which have been taken in opposition to the plan of the convention, there is none that was so little to have been expected, or is so untenable in itself, as the one from which this particular provision has been attacked. If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary, will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper.

In order to cast an odium upon the power of calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, it has been remarked that there is nowhere any provision in the proposed Constitution for calling out the POSSE COMITATUS, to assist the magistrate in the execution of his duty, whence it has been inferred, that military force was intended to be his only auxiliary. There is a striking incoherence in the objections which have appeared, and sometimes even from the same quarter, not much calculated to inspire a very favorable opinion of the sincerity or fair dealing of their authors. The same persons who tell us in one breath, that the powers of the federal government will be despotic and unlimited, inform us in the next, that it has not authority sufficient even to call out the POSSE COMITATUS. The latter, fortunately, is as much short of the truth as the former exceeds it. It would be as absurd to doubt, that a right to pass all laws NECESSARY AND PROPER to execute its declared powers, would include that of requiring the assistance of the citizens to the officers who may be intrusted with the execution of those laws, as it would be to believe, that a right to enact laws necessary and proper for the imposition and collection of taxes would involve that of varying the rules of descent and of the alienation of landed property, or of abolishing the trial by jury in cases relating to it. It being therefore evident that the supposition of a want of power to require the aid of the POSSE COMITATUS is entirely destitute of color, it will follow, that the conclusion which has been drawn from it, in its application to the authority of the federal government over the militia, is as uncandid as it is illogical. What reason could there be to infer, that force was intended to be the sole instrument of authority, merely because there is a power to make use of it when necessary? What shall we think of the motives which could induce men of sense to reason in this manner? How shall we prevent a conflict between charity and judgment?

By a curious refinement upon the spirit of republican jealousy, we are even taught to apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the hands of the federal government. It is observed that select corps may be formed, composed of the young and ardent, who may be rendered subservient to the views of arbitrary power. What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government, is impossible to be foreseen. But so far from viewing the matter in the same light with those who object to select corps as dangerous, were the Constitution ratified, and were I to deliver my sentiments to a member of the federal legislature from this State on the subject of a militia establishment, I should hold to him, in substance, the following discourse:

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.''

Thus differently from the adversaries of the proposed Constitution should I reason on the same subject, deducing arguments of safety from the very sources which they represent as fraught with danger and perdition. But how the national legislature may reason on the point, is a thing which neither they nor I can foresee.

There is something so far-fetched and so extravagant in the idea of danger to liberty from the militia, that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or with raillery; whether to consider it as a mere trial of skill, like the paradoxes of rhetoricians; as a disingenuous artifice to instil prejudices at any price; or as the serious offspring of political fanaticism. Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests? What reasonable cause of apprehension can be inferred from a power in the Union to prescribe regulations for the militia, and to command its services when necessary, while the particular States are to have the SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS? If it were possible seriously to indulge a jealousy of the militia upon any conceivable establishment under the federal government, the circumstance of the officers being in the appointment of the States ought at once to extinguish it. There can be no doubt that this circumstance will always secure to them a preponderating influence over the militia.

In reading many of the publications against the Constitution, a man is apt to imagine that he is perusing some ill-written tale or romance, which instead of natural and agreeable images, exhibits to the mind nothing but frightful and distorted shapes "Gorgons, hydras, and chimeras dire''; discoloring and disfiguring whatever it represents, and transforming everything it touches into a monster.

A sample of this is to be observed in the exaggerated and improbable suggestions which have taken place respecting the power of calling for the services of the militia. That of New Hampshire is to be marched to Georgia, of Georgia to New Hampshire, of New York to Kentucky, and of Kentucky to Lake Champlain. Nay, the debts due to the French and Dutch are to be paid in militiamen instead of louis d'ors and ducats. At one moment there is to be a large army to lay prostrate the liberties of the people; at another moment the militia of Virginia are to be dragged from their homes five or six hundred miles, to tame the republican contumacy of Massachusetts; and that of Massachusetts is to be transported an equal distance to subdue the refractory haughtiness of the aristocratic Virginians. Do the persons who rave at this rate imagine that their art or their eloquence can impose any conceits or absurdities upon the people of America for infallible truths?

If there should be an army to be made use of as the engine of despotism, what need of the militia? If there should be no army, whither would the militia, irritated by being called upon to undertake a distant and hopeless expedition, for the purpose of riveting the chains of slavery upon a part of their countrymen, direct their course, but to the seat of the tyrants, who had meditated so foolish as well as so wicked a project, to crush them in their imagined intrenchments of power, and to make them an example of the just vengeance of an abused and incensed people? Is this the way in which usurpers stride to dominion over a numerous and enlightened nation? Do they begin by exciting the detestation of the very instruments of their intended usurpations? Do they usually commence their career by wanton and disgustful acts of power, calculated to answer no end, but to draw upon themselves universal hatred and execration? Are suppositions of this sort the sober admonitions of discerning patriots to a discerning people? Or are they the inflammatory ravings of incendiaries or distempered enthusiasts? If we were even to suppose the national rulers actuated by the most ungovernable ambition, it is impossible to believe that they would employ such preposterous means to accomplish their designs.

In times of insurrection, or invasion, it would be natural and proper that the militia of a neighboring State should be marched into another, to resist a common enemy, or to guard the republic against the violence of faction or sedition. This was frequently the case, in respect to the first object, in the course of the late war; and this mutual succor is, indeed, a principal end of our political association. If the power of affording it be placed under the direction of the Union, there will be no danger of a supine and listless inattention to the dangers of a neighbor, till its near approach had super-added the incitements of self-preservation to the too feeble impulses of duty and sympathy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

French Assembly

By: Mr. Jones, Editor of The American Federalist

     While we encourage the expansion of freedoms for the poor citizens of nations, we at The American Federalist must warn the French People of the chaos that might erupt from this assembly and strictly chastise them for the threat to the stability of the realm that they pose. In addition, The American Federalist warns President Washington to not support an overthrow of the French Monarchy, suggesting that he sticks to neutrality if that case ever does occur.

Edited by LM32

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On Independents Resigning

By: Mr. Jones, Editor of The American Federalist

    Recently, 2 congressmen that ere independent of the parties that represent our government resigned and were replaced with Federalist members. We at The American Federalist thank the retiring members for their service and welcome our new brothers joining the ranks. May they do their districts, the party, and the country proud.

Edited by LM32

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On New York Governor Elections

By: Jonathon Jones, Editor of The American Federalist

    "Recently, New York has changed the way that the state chooses governors. The old method of voting is now obsolete and the elected State Legislature will elect the governor. We at The American Federalist firmly support the decision of the legislature. The voters still very much have their say on the choice as by choosing their representatives, who know the governor candidates the best to choose the correct choice."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brazil in Revolt!

By: Jonathon Jones, Editor of The American Federalist

    "Brazil has long been under the tyranny of unfair taxes, much like another country that we all love, and has decided to attempt to overthrow their Portuguese Oppressors. The Brazilians disagreed with the harsh taxes that the Portuguese government has been putting on their now struggling gold mines and have chosen to rebel, much like the United States of America, whom they revere. We, at The American Federalist, believe that it is the responsibility of the United States government to help another former colony throw off the shackles of tyranny and unfair taxation."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Tyson's Response When Asked About Slavery

By: Jonathon Jones, Editor

  Recently a newspaper editor had asked Mr. Tyson about his views on the slavery issue after seeing his suggestion to ban the practice fail and seeing another congressman's suggestion to re-legalize it fail. Mr. Tyson responded by saying, "While I personally find slavery reprehensible, I believe that every state has the right to decide whether or not to allow the act. While I was personally disappointed and happy when the bills failed, were I the President, I would not be pushing the issue and would focus on more important matters like the assumption of states debts, which would benefit every citizen of the United States of America, a policy which I sent a letter to President Washington about, proposed a bill, and then cosponsored the bill that is currently being debated."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On The Vermont Problem

By: Jonathon Jones, Editor

  This newspaper is sad to announce that our governor has pushed Vermont into the hands of the British king with his aggressive policies. While our Federalist colleagues have pushed for compensation from Governor Clinton, he has mobilized our militia and had plans to invade the independent nation when they had had plans of joining our great nation. We thoroughly condemn his actions and encourage the President, Governor, and Congress to reach out to make amends with our friends from Vermont, only requiring monetary compensation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace in Europe

By: Jonathon Jones

Recently, the war between the great nations of Russia and Sweden has come to an end. We at the American Federalist are quite proud to support this peace treaty and congratulate the two leaders in settling their differences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damage To The Arts

By: Jonathon Jones

Our favored Mr. Tyson, the representative of New York's 3rd district, had made a proposal to reinforce the freedom of speech and provide a small amount to promote the cultural development of our new nation, so that we can compare to our contemporaries in Europe. Unfortunately, this bill was narrowly defeated in the house by a margin of 1 vote. Hopefully this bill will be proposed again after, God willing, the Federalists gain more seats in the coming elections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×