I am enrolled in a U.S. Government course and my assignment is to reflect the Federalist views with the anti-Federalist views. I am making the point that the Federalists while believing a central government was necessary, it was still an evil. George Washington said something about Government, like fire is a fearful... but I cannot remember the entire quote or who it was to. If you can help this would be apprecieated. Also if you know of any Anti-Federalist quotes I could use them too if they clearly display their reasons for being agin' the formation of the Central government. Thanks!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Help with a G. Washington quote for assignment!
- Thread starter kjm
- Start date
http://www.quoteland.com/quotes/author/474.html
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."
-George Washington
-----
BTW, KJ, I found it by going to www.Google.com and searching on
"George Washington" "fearful master"
Note the quotes indicate each two word group should be used as a single term.
[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited August 30, 2000).]
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."
-George Washington
-----
BTW, KJ, I found it by going to www.Google.com and searching on
"George Washington" "fearful master"
Note the quotes indicate each two word group should be used as a single term.
[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited August 30, 2000).]
that "fire" quote is also in the www.standandfight.com quote finder
here is a useful nugget from RKBA.org:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Though agreeing upon the
inherent rights of free people, the Federalists and anti-
Federalists disagreed on the extent to which those rights
needed to be codified and disagreed on the desirability of a
standing army. Anti-federalist patriots such as Patrick
Henry, Thomas Jefferson, and George Mason spoke eloquently
against a standing army as the bane of liberty. They felt
that the armed citizenry, in their words, the "militia," was
the most important deterrent to despotism. They abhorred a
"select militia," such as today's National Guard, because it
is a threat to freedom as fearful as a "standing army."(37)
37 Halbrook SP. "The Right of the People or the Power
of the State: Bearing Arms, Arming Militias, and the Second
Amendment." Valparaiso U. Law Review. Fall 1991; 26: 131-207[/quote]
http://rkba.org/research/suter/rkba.txt
here is another info source:
ANTI-FEDERALIST Writings by the Opponents of the Constitution US
Constitution/History Herbert J. Storing, Editor $12.95 http://rkba.org/libertarian/isil/bk-cat.txt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
the 1982 Senate report has some weight: http://www.2ndlawlib.com/other/other/senrpt/senrpt.html#h2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> A necessary premise underlying Anti-federalist attack on the militia clauses
of the Constitution was that these clauses operated to place exclusive
jurisdiction over the militia in the hands of the general government. Though
the Federalists denied this premise, it was affirmed even by Luther Martin and
Elbridge Gerry, who had been members of the Federal Convention, but who now
opposed the Constitution. Martin is particularly interesting because he
advanced all of the contradictory arguments used by the antifederalists.
Speaking on November 29, 1787 to the Maryland legislature, he said:
. . . Engines of power are supplied by the standing Army-- unlimited as to
number or its duration, in addition to this Government has the entire Command
of the Militia, and may call the whole Militia of any State into Action, a
power, which it was vainly urged ought never to exceed a certain proportion.
By organizing the Militia Congress have taken the whole power from the State
Governments; and by neglecting to do it and encreasing the Standing Army,
their power will increase by those very means that will be adopted and urged
as an ease to the People.60
Martin later invoked the opposite approach, that the militia would be subject
to ruthless discipline and martial law, and would be marched to the ends of
the continent in the service of tyranny. In a letter published on January 18,
1788, Martin wrote that the new system for governing the militia was "giving
the states the last coup de grace by taking from them the only means of self
preservation.''61[/quote]
http://rkba.org/research/1982rkba.txt
or the same document is in a nicer format here: http://www.2ndlawlib.com/journals/jldevae.html
a search here for the phrase "anti-federalist" is quite illuminating: http://www.2ndlawlib.com/misc/search/
HTH
dZ
here is a useful nugget from RKBA.org:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Though agreeing upon the
inherent rights of free people, the Federalists and anti-
Federalists disagreed on the extent to which those rights
needed to be codified and disagreed on the desirability of a
standing army. Anti-federalist patriots such as Patrick
Henry, Thomas Jefferson, and George Mason spoke eloquently
against a standing army as the bane of liberty. They felt
that the armed citizenry, in their words, the "militia," was
the most important deterrent to despotism. They abhorred a
"select militia," such as today's National Guard, because it
is a threat to freedom as fearful as a "standing army."(37)
37 Halbrook SP. "The Right of the People or the Power
of the State: Bearing Arms, Arming Militias, and the Second
Amendment." Valparaiso U. Law Review. Fall 1991; 26: 131-207[/quote]
http://rkba.org/research/suter/rkba.txt
here is another info source:
ANTI-FEDERALIST Writings by the Opponents of the Constitution US
Constitution/History Herbert J. Storing, Editor $12.95 http://rkba.org/libertarian/isil/bk-cat.txt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
the 1982 Senate report has some weight: http://www.2ndlawlib.com/other/other/senrpt/senrpt.html#h2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> A necessary premise underlying Anti-federalist attack on the militia clauses
of the Constitution was that these clauses operated to place exclusive
jurisdiction over the militia in the hands of the general government. Though
the Federalists denied this premise, it was affirmed even by Luther Martin and
Elbridge Gerry, who had been members of the Federal Convention, but who now
opposed the Constitution. Martin is particularly interesting because he
advanced all of the contradictory arguments used by the antifederalists.
Speaking on November 29, 1787 to the Maryland legislature, he said:
. . . Engines of power are supplied by the standing Army-- unlimited as to
number or its duration, in addition to this Government has the entire Command
of the Militia, and may call the whole Militia of any State into Action, a
power, which it was vainly urged ought never to exceed a certain proportion.
By organizing the Militia Congress have taken the whole power from the State
Governments; and by neglecting to do it and encreasing the Standing Army,
their power will increase by those very means that will be adopted and urged
as an ease to the People.60
Martin later invoked the opposite approach, that the militia would be subject
to ruthless discipline and martial law, and would be marched to the ends of
the continent in the service of tyranny. In a letter published on January 18,
1788, Martin wrote that the new system for governing the militia was "giving
the states the last coup de grace by taking from them the only means of self
preservation.''61[/quote]
http://rkba.org/research/1982rkba.txt
or the same document is in a nicer format here: http://www.2ndlawlib.com/journals/jldevae.html
a search here for the phrase "anti-federalist" is quite illuminating: http://www.2ndlawlib.com/misc/search/
HTH
dZ