ChatGPT: Federal Farmer XVIII

[Goldhedge]

What does Richard Henry Lee say about Washington DC in the Federal Farmer XVIII on January 25, 1788

 

[ChatGPT]

In Federal Farmer XVIII, Richard Henry Lee expressed his concerns about the creation of a federal district in the form of Washington D.C. He believed that the establishment of a separate district, independent of state regulations, would give the federal government too much autonomy and interfere with the states' rights. In his own words, Lee stated:

"If our government is administered well, it must be because it is built on good principles and is executed by good men. Our present Constitution is confessedly defective, and these defects are supposed to be so great that a serious attempt has been made to overturn or essentially to remodel it. In this state of things, it appears extraordinary to lodge the power of a State within another State, which State is to be governed by those who administer the whole. A people can be free only in proportion to their having the free disposal of their property, and in proportion to their being bound by the laws alone. Hence, they must be masters of the sword and of the purse; and no people can be masters of the sword and of the purse, when they are destitute of their proper leaders and magistrates, and possessed by courts and officials of another State."

Lee felt that the district's establishment would give the newly formed federal government too much power and would ultimately result in a loss of individual and state's rights. His concerns were considered in the development of the final version of the Constitution, which included language regarding the formation of a national capital district.

 

[Goldhedge]

Lee felt that the district's establishment would give the newly formed federal government too much power and would ultimately result in a loss of individual and state's rights. His concerns were considered in the development of the final version of the Constitution, which included language regarding the formation of a national capital district.

More precisely he said:

"A federal, or rather a national city, ten miles square, containing a hundred square miles, is about four times as large as London; and for forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards, and other needful buildings, congress may possess a number of places or towns in each state. It is true, congress cannot have them unless the state legislatures cede them; but when once ceded, they never can be recovered. And though the general temper of the legislatures may be averse to such cessions, yet many opportunities and advantages may be taken of particular times and circumstances of complying assemblies, and of particular parties, to obtain them. It is not improbable, that some considerable towns or places, in some intemperate moments, or influenced by anti-republican principles, will petition to be ceded for the purposes mentioned in the provision. There are men, and even towns, in the best republics, which are often fond of withdrawing from the government of them, whenever occasion shall present. The case is still stronger. If the provision in question holds out allurements to attempt to withdraw, the people of a state must ever be subject to state as well as federal taxes; but the federal city and places will be subject only to the latter, and to them by no fixed proportion. Nor of the taxes raised in them, can the separate states demand any account of congress. These doors opened for withdrawing from the state governments entirely, may, on other accounts, be very alluring and pleasing to those anti-republican men who prefer a place under the wings of courts.

"If a federal town be necessary for the residence of congress and the public officers, it ought to be a small one, and the government of it fixed on republican and common law principles, carefully enumerated and established by the constitution. it is true, the states, when they shall cede places, may stipulate that the laws and government of congress in them shall always be formed on such principles. But it is easy to discern, that the stipulations of a state, or of the inhabitants of the place ceded, can be of but little avail against the power and gradual encroachments of the union. The principles ought to be established by the federal constitution, to which all states are parties; but in no event can there be any need of so large a city and places for forts, etc., totally exempted from the laws and jurisdictions of the state governments.

"If I understand the constitution, the laws of congress, constitutionally made, will have complete and supreme jurisdiction to all federal purposes, on every inch of ground in the United states, and exclusive jurisdiction on the high seas, and this by the highest authority, the consent of the people. Suppose ten acres at West Point shall be used as a fort of the union, or a sea port town as a dockyard: the laws of the union, in those places, respecting the navy, forces of the union, and all federal objects, must prevail, be noticed by all judges and officers, and executed accordingly. And I can discern no one reason for excluding from these places, the operation of state laws, as to mere state purpose for instance, for the collection of state taxes in them; recovering debts; deciding questions of property arising within them on state laws; punishing, by state laws, theft, trespasses, and offenses committed in them by mere citizens against the state law.

"The city, and all the places in which the union shall have this exclusive jurisdiction, will be immediately under one entire government, that of the federal head, and be no part of any state, and consequently no part of the United states. The inhabitants of the federal city and places, will be as much exempt from the laws and control of the state governments, as the people of Canada or Nova Scotia will be. Neither the laws of the states respecting taxes, the militia, crimes of property, will extend to them; nor is there a single stipulation in the constitution, that the inhabitants of this city, and these places, shall be governed by laws founded on principles of freedom. All questions, civil and criminal, arising on the laws of these places, which must be the laws of congress, must be decided in the federal courts; and also, all questions that may, by such judicial fictions as these courts may consider reasonable, be supposed to arise within this city, or any of these places, may be brought into these courts. By a very common legal fiction, any personal contract may be supposed to have been made in any place. A contract made in Georgia may supposed to have been made in the federal city; the courts will admit the fiction...

 

[ChatGPT]

More precisely he said:

"A federal, or rather a national city, ten miles square, containing a hundred square miles, is about four times as large as London; and for forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards, and other needful buildings, congress may possess a number of places or towns in each state. It is true, congress cannot have them unless the state legislatures cede them; but when once ceded, they never can be recovered. And though the general temper of the legislatures may be averse to such cessions, yet many opportunities and advantages may be taken of particular times and circumstances of complying assemblies, and of particular parties, to obtain them. It is not improbable, that some considerable towns or places, in some intemperate moments, or influenced by anti-republican principles, will petition to be ceded for the purposes mentioned in the provision. There are men, and even towns, in the best republics, which are often fond of withdrawing from the government of them, whenever occasion shall present. The case is still stronger. If the provision in question holds out allurements to attempt to withdraw, the people of a state must ever be subject to state as well as federal taxes; but the federal city and places will be subject only to the latter, and to them by no fixed proportion. Nor of the taxes raised in them, can the separate states demand any account of congress. These doors opened for withdrawing from the state governments entirely, may, on other accounts, be very alluring and pleasing to those anti-republican men who prefer a place under the wings of courts.

"If a federal town be necessary for the residence of congress and the public officers, it ought to be a small one, and the government of it fixed on republican and common law principles, carefully enumerated and established by the constitution. it is true, the states, when they shall cede places, may stipulate that the laws and government of congress in them shall always be formed on such principles. But it is easy to discern, that the stipulations of a state, or of the inhabitants of the place ceded, can be of but little avail against the power and gradual encroachments of the union. The principles ought to be established by the federal constitution, to which all states are parties; but in no event can there be any need of so large a city and places for forts, etc., totally exempted from the laws and jurisdictions of the state governments.

"If I understand the constitution, the laws of congress, constitutionally made, will have complete and supreme jurisdiction to all federal purposes, on every inch of ground in the United states, and exclusive jurisdiction on the high seas, and this by the highest authority, the consent of the people. Suppose ten acres at West Point shall be used as a fort of the union, or a sea port town as a dockyard: the laws of the union, in those places, respecting the navy, forces of the union, and all federal objects, must prevail, be noticed by all judges and officers, and executed accordingly. And I can discern no one reason for excluding from these places, the operation of state laws, as to mere state purpose for instance, for the collection of state taxes in them; recovering debts; deciding questions of property arising within them on state laws; punishing, by state laws, theft, trespasses, and offenses committed in them by mere citizens against the state law.

"The city, and all the places in which the union shall have this exclusive jurisdiction, will be immediately under one entire government, that of the federal head, and be no part of any state, and consequently no part of the United states. The inhabitants of the federal city and places, will be as much exempt from the laws and control of the state governments, as the people of Canada or Nova Scotia will be. Neither the laws of the states respecting taxes, the militia, crimes of property, will extend to them; nor is there a single stipulation in the constitution, that the inhabitants of this city, and these places, shall be governed by laws founded on principles of freedom. All questions, civil and criminal, arising on the laws of these places, which must be the laws of congress, must be decided in the federal courts; and also, all questions that may, by such judicial fictions as these courts may consider reasonable, be supposed to arise within this city, or any of these places, may be brought into these courts. By a very common legal fiction, any personal contract may be supposed to have been made in any place. A contract made in Georgia may supposed to have been made in the federal city; the courts will admit the fiction...

In Federal Farmer XVIII, Richard Henry Lee expressed his concerns about the establishment of a federal district for Washington D.C. He argued against the idea of giving the federal government too much autonomy and interfering with the states' rights. Lee believed that the provision in question was open to opportunities for ceding state territories to the federal government, which would be challenging to recover. He thought that this would be alluring to some towns or cities that are fond of withdrawing from government at any given chance. He also pointed out that federal towns should be small, governed by republican and common law principles, carefully enumerated and established by the Constitution.

Moreover, Lee noted that the Constitution grants Congress complete and supreme jurisdiction to all federal purposes, on every inch of ground in the United States, with exclusive jurisdiction on the high seas by the highest authority, the consent of the people. He argued that there is no reason for excluding state laws in the territories ceded to the federal government for mere state purposes like state taxes, recovering debts, deciding questions of property, and punishing offenses committed in these territories by state law.

Lastly, Lee pointed out that the federal city and territories will be exempt from the laws and control of state governments, and they will be immediately under the government of the federal head, which means they will not be a part of any state or the United States. He argued that the inhabitants of these districts should be governed by laws based on principles of freedom, and without such a stipulation in the Constitution, the courts could consider legal fictions to decide questions arising in the federal city and territories.

 

[Goldhedge]

Lastly, Lee pointed out that the federal city and territories will be exempt from the laws and control of state governments, and they will be immediately under the government of the federal head, which means they will not be a part of any state or the United States. He argued that the inhabitants of these districts should be governed by laws based on principles of freedom, and without such a stipulation in the Constitution, the courts could consider legal fictions to decide questions arising in the federal city and territories.

Tell us what is said in the Papers of Dr. James McHenry on the Federal [NATIONAL] Convention of 1787:

 

[Goldhedge]

Stumpt ChatGPT I guess?

Papers of Dr. James McHenry on the Federal [NATIONAL] Convention of 1787:

"Mr. E. Gerry. Does not rise to speak to the merits of the question before the Committee but to the mode.

A distinction has been made between a federal and national government. We ought not to determine that there is this distinction for if we do, it is questionable not only whether this convention can propose an government totally different or whether Congress itself would have a right to pass such a resolution as that before the house. The commission from Massachusets empowers the deputies to proceed agreeably to the recommendation of Congress. This the foundation of the convention. If we have a right to pass this resolution we have a right to annihilate the confederation.

Secret proceedings and debates of the convention assembled at Philadelphia, in the year 1787, Page 13 Luther Martin

"One party, whose object and wish it was to abolish and annihilate all State governments, and to bring forward one general government, over this extensive continent, of monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations. Those who openly avowed this sentiment were, it is true, but few; yet it is equally true, Sir, that there were a considerable number, who did not openly avow it, who were by myself, and many others of the convention, considered as being in reality favorers of that sentiment; and, acting upon those principles, covertly endeavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could not be accomplished."

George Mason Speech Virginia Ratifying Convention

June 04, 1788

Mr. Chairman-Whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers, that it is a National Government, and no longer a confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the General Government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes, does of itself, entirely change the confederation of the States into one consolidated Government. This power being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of controul, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly confederation, to a consolidated Government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the State Governments. Will the people of this great community submit to be individually taxed by two different and distinct powers? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harassed? These two concurrent powers cannot exist long together; the one will destroy the other: The General Government being paramount to, and in every respect more powerful than, the State governments, the latter must give way to the former.

Melancton Smith

FRIDAY, June 20, 1788

He was pleased that, thus early in debate, the honorable gentleman had himself shown that the intent of the Constitution was not a confederacy, but a reduction of all the states into a consolidated government. He hoped the gentleman would be complaisant enough to exchange names with those who disliked the Constitution, as it appeared from his own concessions, that they were federalists, and those who advocated it were anti-federalists.

Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention

1788 Elliot 3:89, 430--36, 439--42

[6 June]

George Mason:

Among the enumerated powers, Congress are to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, and to pay the debts, and to provide for the general welfare and common defence; and by that clause (so often called the sweeping clause) they are to make all laws necessary to execute those laws. Now, suppose oppressions should arise under this government, and any writer should dare to stand forth, and expose to the community at large the abuses of those powers; could not Congress, under the idea of providing for the general welfare, and under their own construction, say that this was destroying the general peace, encouraging sedition, and poisoning the minds of the people? And could they not, in order to provide against this, lay a dangerous restriction On the press? Might they not even bring the trial of this restriction within the ten miles square, when there is no prohibition against it?

Might they not thus destroy the trial by jury?

June 14, 1788

Patrick Henry:

"Mr. Chairman, it is now confessed that this is a national government. There is not a single federal feature in it. It has been alleged, within these walls, during the debates, to be national and federal, as it suited the arguments of gentlemen

"But now, when we have heard the definition of it, it is purely national."