Federalist paper number 6. Cliff notes.
Have republics in practice been less addicted to war than monarchies? Are not the former administered by men as well as the latter? . . . Are not popular assemblies frequently subject to the impulses of rage, resentment, jealousy, avarice, and of other irregular and violent propensities? . . .
Has commerce hitherto done any thing more than change the objects of war? Is not the love of wealth as domineering and enterprising a passion as that of power or glory? . . . Has not the spirit of commerce in many instances administered new incentives to the appetite both for the one and the other?
Rome, Carthage, Venice, and Holland were cited to buttress the point that these republics had not been any less warlike than the monarchies of their day. In Britain, for example, commerce had been for ages the predominant pursuit, with the result that few nations "have been more frequently engaged in war;" and such wars had, "in numerous instances proceeded from the people. There have been, if I may so express it, almost as many popular as royal wars."
Away with the reveries that were seducing Americans to believe that, if divided, the several confederacies could peacefully coexist! Hamilton concluded by quoting from an "intelligent writer," l'Abbe de Mably, who in his Principes des Negociations laid it down as an unchallenged political axiom that "vicinity, or nearness of situation," makes nations "natural enemies."
https://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/f/the-federalist/summary-and-analysis/section-i-general-introduction-federalist-no-6-hamilton
The point I am making is that without a strong federal presence states have abused voter rights in the past. And plan to make it harder for lawful citizens to vote.
States rights in voting can only be administered fairly is if the election is within state officials who responsibility is to govern the state. Federal elected officials need to have a level of federal guidance against the natural tendencies of modern man desire to inflict suffering against those who don't have the same ideology as the ruling party.
And that the dissenting argument has ad much validity as the majority argument.
Hot Forum Topics
