The History Book Club discussion

This is the thread for the discussion of FEDERALIST. NO 6.

This paper is titled CONCERNING DANGERS FROM DISSENSIONS BETWEEN THE STATES .

This paper was written by Alexander Hamilton.

by Alexander Hamilton

This is the reading assignment for next week:

FEDERALIST No. 6

Concerning Dangers from Dissensions Between the States (Alexander Hamilton)

April 9th, 2018 - April 15th, 2018 - (page 48)



Remember each week's assignment may take you 10 minutes tops. And each paper is about 2 pages in length; so it is easy to catch up at your leisure. Reading these papers really helps put our government in perspective (US).

Also, we are able to discuss the current assignment or any of the previous week's assignments so you can always catch up, ask questions and/or participate and comment at any time.

Federalist 6 was open on April 9th and this one is longer and dense. A great many historical allusions.

I thought that I would go back and post some of the notes from SN regarding earlier Federalist Papers for those catching up. These are the notes for Federalist Papers (6 - 9)

NATURAL COMPETITION BETWEEN STATES LEADS TO CONFLICT

"A great danger exists in the competition between states themselves if they are left entirely to their own sovereignty, with no unifying government. Men are by their nature ambitious, and independent states will naturally compete with one another for love of power, control of commerce and domination of territory."

COMMERCIAL NATIONS BREED CONFLICT

"Nations that have been commercial, such as Athens, Carthage, Holland and Great Britain have historically been embroiled in wars with competitors over commerce. What would lead us to believe that our individual states, if separate in commerce, would not be reduced to such wars?"

STATES MAY HAVE TERRITORIAL DISPUTES

"Nations also make war over territorial disputes and conquests. This would be especially threatening to this country, if out states were independent nations, because of the vast amount of unsettled territories to the west. This dispute has already come to fruition in debates over which state is entitled to the rightful ownership of the former "crown lands," and in disputes over lands that are claimed by one or more state."

PUBLIC DEBT COLLECTION ISSUES

"Further competition between states would be aggravated by the existence of many different state commercial policies and plans to pay off public debt. States would have no reason to obey each other's policy, and costly and complicated system of inter-state imposts would result. States would approach the payment of public debt differently leading to conflict over should pay the burden of the debt. This could cause external threat also, as European creditors demand repayment of their loans, and the delinquencies of some states would complicate this."

CONFEDERACY OPEN TO SECURITY ISSUES

"We cannot assume that a confederacy can be constructed in any way different from the one under the Articles of Confederation, and many of the problems noted above have already occurred. It can be concluded, then, that if America is not connected or connected only loosely, it will become devoured by its parts, open to invasion by enemies equally threatening to them all."

All of the above from Spark Notes.

Source: Spark Notes - citation - message 158

Folks we are ready to begin on Federalist Six. And we are with Alexander Hamilton this week.

Non-Stop

From the Hamilton Musical

Discusses The Federalist Papers:

Link:

Source: Youtube

Federalists: Definition, Arguments & Views

The Map of the Thirteen Colonies shows how far we have come



Source: Study.com

Note: It appears that study.com wants you to sign up free in the middle of the video - you can or not - depending. I did quite like the map which came before that.

Here is an audio of the paper:

The Federalist #6: Concerning Dangers from Dissensions Between the States

Link:

And so we begin:



To the People of the State of New York:

The three last numbers of this paper have been dedicated to an enumeration of the dangers to which we should be exposed, in a state of disunion, from the arms and arts of foreign nations. I shall now proceed to delineate dangers of a different and, perhaps, still more alarming kind—those which will in all probability flow from dissensions between the States themselves, and from domestic factions and convulsions. These have been already in some instances slightly anticipated; but they deserve a more particular and more full investigation. ¶ Paragraph One

A man must be far gone in Utopian speculations who can seriously doubt that, if these States should either be wholly disunited, or only united in partial confederacies, the subdivisions into which they might be thrown would have frequent and violent contests with each other. To presume a want of motives for such contests as an argument against their existence, would be to forget that men are ambitious, vindictive, and rapacious. To look for a continuation of harmony between a number of independent, unconnected sovereignties in the same neighborhood, would be to disregard the uniform course of human events, and to set at defiance the accumulated experience of ages. ¶ Paragraph Two

In Paragraph One - Hamilton summarizes what has been discussed in the previous three papers (Federalist 3, 4, 5) - the dangers that our young country would be exposed if the Constitution was not adopted:

1. A state of disunion due to foreign nations whether through weapons or attempts to dissemble and cause trouble and discord

And in the same paragraph - Hamilton turns his attention to the subject of this paper:

A more dangerous kind of danger - dangers from within!

a) Dissension
b) Domestic Factions and Rancor

Discussion Topics:

1. How does Federalist Six identify way after its time - the dangers that our country faces today? What kinds of divisiveness was Hamilton discussing then and how do we see these kinds of dangers now? Why or why not?

2. Also in terms of the summary of the previous three papers - what comes to mind in terms of foreign attempts to dissemble our politics and our country today?

Chief Justice Interview on the Constitution Chief Justice John Roberts talked about the U.S. Constitution at the Supreme Court.

He talked about his early interest in constitutional law, the role of the constitution in the operation of government, structure of the Constitution and its Amendments, and the process of judicial review.

The interview was part of a C-SPAN Classroom project designed to interest middle and high school students in the Constitution.



Source: C-Span and Youtube

Re: Domestic Divisiveness in the News at the Present Time

Tarriffs are in the news quite often now. We're seeing federal tariffs proposed that may favor certain struggling industries. But other countries can retaliate, such as China threatening to stop buying soybeans. So the soybean farmers get an economic hit. New appliances will cost every family more. This is just the beginning of the snowball effect. If tariffs are put into place, there should be a study of positives and negatives by economists and international business specialists, not some midnight tweet. Helping one faction in the country can lead to another faction being hurt.

Now, imagine this on a state level--13 states (or 50 states now) all instituting their own tariffs on goods from other states and other countries. It would be a nightmare trying to transport and sell goods between states. Hamilton could see the problem. He also knew how powerful people would use their influence for financial gain since "men are ambitious, vindictive, and rapacious."

The Environmental Protection Agency has also been in the news lately. In the past, the EPA has done some important work cleaning up the water. Some important large rivers run through many states. If a state at the source of a river allows industrial pollution or diverts off too much water, the states downstream will not have a good water supply or a means to make hydroelectric power. For example, there is a big problem out West with water shortages. Oil companies are able to outbid farmers for water to use in fracking. Big cities and large industries want the water diverted to their areas. It's a bad situation now, but it would be even worse if the states were separate countries.

I live in the Northeast, and the rivers are much cleaner than they were in the 1960s. For example, some factories in the mill towns dumped chemicals and dyes into the rivers. Fish were killed and amphibians had genetic abnormalities. I remember factories with thick black smoke coming out the chimneys 24/7, blowing eastward from the big industrial states, when I was a child. Federal regulations have helped the states down river, or down wind. I doubt if this cooperative environmental work could have been done if the states were separate countries. So it's heartbreaking to see what's happening at the federal EPA now.

Connie you raise a very powerful point - I could not imagine such a situation. It would have been terrible and I think we would have been taken over by another more powerful country if that had happened. (France, Spain, Great Britain).

Yes, what has happened to the EPA is not pretty and you raise some other very relevant points about Federalist 6. Dissension
Domestic Factions and Rancor would have consumed us if we were each state alone and fending for itself. Look we have divisiveness today but at least I think at some level we do not want to go it alone.

It is heartbreaking - but I also think it is criminal on some level to knowingly allow chemicals and dyes or even look the other way and have our water supply impacted. Many communities have spent vast sums of money cleaning up their waterways. It is so sad on so many levels - and I cannot understand the motivations on the other side to think that this is OK. At the time of the founding fathers - I doubt they would have ever imagined that their pristine environment could become so in peril. And let us not even begin talking about the impact on the planet.

I am thankful that our fathering fathers were so forward thinking and crystal clear in their priorities. I just wish our politicians were.

We return to Alexander Hamilton in Federalist six, the longest piece we have see so far. Hamilton makes a strong impression comparing the American states with the Greek city states and the devastation of the long Peloponnesian War. Educated people then would have been more familiar with the Greek city states than today. It creates an image of shifting alliances, small weak polities and two dominant cities fight each other though the years. It seems as though that would be a powerful statement against a weak central government. It would have had a strong impact among the smaller states of New England.

Yes we do! It is meaty for sure. I found that interesting and frankly I thought that Hamilton was being more of an elitist with that comparison. He was not trying to convince the merchants and wealthy that the Constitution was a great idea but mainly the farmers and the rural folks who were on the fence or were siding with the Anti Federalists.

Remember the Federalists tended to be businessmen, merchants, or wealthy plantation owners. They favored a strong central government that would have more control over the people than the individual state governments.

And remember as well that the Anti-Federalists worked mainly as farmers. They wanted a weaker central government that would mainly assist the state governments by providing basic functions like defense, international diplomacy, and setting foreign policy.

So marching out discussions of the Greek city states and the Peloponnesian War might not have been the most prudent thing to do. But Hamilton did not always think of the long game.

It was surely a powerful argument but for some rural farmers - they may have felt that Hamilton did not identify with them and they with him or whoever Publius was.

I think that Hamilton's arguments are sound but.... this is also supposed to change minds and influence people. And you do not want the Federalist point of view to be termed "elitist".

So I thought about how he handled this piece and wondered at the approach....not the arguments. Just MHO.

Let us discuss Paragraph Two:

A man must be far gone in Utopian speculations who can seriously doubt that, if these States should either be wholly disunited, or only united in partial confederacies, the subdivisions into which they might be thrown would have frequent and violent contests with each other. To presume a want of motives for such contests as an argument against their existence, would be to forget that men are ambitious, vindictive, and rapacious. To look for a continuation of harmony between a number of independent, unconnected sovereignties in the same neighborhood, would be to disregard the uniform course of human events, and to set at defiance the accumulated experience of ages. ¶ Paragraph Two

Here Hamilton basically says that you must be daft if you think that all of these states out for themselves would not dissolve into huge conflicts and dissatisfaction with each other.

He discusses the basic nature of mankind and "men" to be ambitious, vindictive, and rapacious - I would say that was a good call given our current political and congressional environment but I digress.

Rapacious means - aggressively greedy or grasping.
"rapacious landlords"

Vindictive means - having or showing a strong or unreasoning desire for revenge.
"the criticism was both vindictive and personalized"

Ambitious means - having or showing a strong desire and determination to succeed.
"his mother was hard-working and ambitious for her four children"
synonyms: aspiring, determined, forceful, pushy, enterprising, motivated, enthusiastic, energetic, zealous, committed, purposeful, power-hungry

I would assume that in the case of the word ambitious that Hamilton was not discussing the positive characteristics of that word - but in fact - forceful, pushy, zealous, power-hungry.

And he ends the paragraph by saying that to think that these entities would get along and not end up in total disarray ignores history and common sense.

Discussion Topics:

1. Any comments or thoughts about this paragraph, or any of the others.

We go on to paragraphs 3 and 4:


Pericles

Here they are:

"The causes of hostility among nations are innumerable. There are some which have a general and almost constant operation upon the collective bodies of society. Of this description are the love of power or the desire of pre-eminence and dominion—the jealousy of power, or the desire of equality and safety. There are others which have a more circumscribed though an equally operative influence within their spheres. Such are the rivalships and competitions of commerce between commercial nations. And there are others, not less numerous than either of the former, which take their origin entirely in private passions; in the attachments, enmities, interests, hopes, and fears of leading individuals in the communities of which they are members. Men of this class, whether the favorites of a king or of a people, have in too many instances abused the confidence they possessed; and assuming the pretext of some public motive, have not scrupled to sacrifice the national tranquillity to personal advantage or personal gratification. ¶ - Paragraph 3

The celebrated Pericles, in compliance with the resentment of a prostitute,1 at the expense of much of the blood and treasure of his countrymen, attacked, vanquished, and destroyed the city of the Samnians. The same man, stimulated by private pique against the Megarensians,2 another nation of Greece, or to avoid a prosecution with which he was threatened as an accomplice of a supposed theft of the statuary Phidias,3 or to get rid of the accusations prepared to be brought against him for dissipating the funds of the state in the purchase of popularity,4 or from a combination of all these causes, was the primitive author of that famous and fatal war, distinguished in the Grecian annals by the name of the Peloponnesian war; which, after various vicissitudes, intermissions, and renewals, terminated in the ruin of the Athenian commonwealth. ¶ - Paragraph 4

Ancient Heroes - Pericles of Athens (hero of Greece)



Source: Strategos

by Donald Kagan

Also referenced:

Plutarch's Life of Pericles

by Plutarch

Synopsis:
An Extract from Plutarch's Lives

both volumes by Plutarch

Khan Academy - Explains how the city states start fighting among themselves. Athens and Sparta fight each other - Athens loses and that leaves all of the city states weakened including Sparta so that they are then conquered by the Macedonians - Philip of Macedonia and then his son Alexander the Great is not only able to keep control of Greece and the city states but is able to conquer Persia, Egypt and get all of the way to modern day Afghanistan, Pakistan. And after his death - then all of the city states fall under the rule of the Antigonod Dynasty and then eventually it all goes under Roman control. Lesson: All because the city states could not get along - they lost their freedom.

Philosophy: Socrates, Plato and Aristotle

Link:

Source: Khan Academy

Also, there is a reference to Aspacia beginning in paragraph 32 of Plutarch's Lives dealing with Pericles:



I have included the entire section which is worth reading to get up to speed on Federalist 6.

Alright we are now talking about the resentment of a prostitute in Federalist 6 (folks you cannot make this up) - her name was Aspasia.

Anyway it appears - "And so Aspasia, as some say, was held in high favour by Pericles because of her rare political wisdom. Socrates sometimes came to see her with his disciples, and his intimate friends brought their wives to her to hear her discourse, although she presided over a business that was anything but honest or even reputable, since she kept a house of young courtesans.” - Pericles liked her but this did not do him any good.

This is Aspacia:



This is the background of what Hamilton was alluding to regarding Aspacia:

Aspasia (c. 470 – c.400 BCE), companion to Pericles, the great statesman of Athens, is said to have influenced not only his actions, but also the philosophies of Socrates, Plato, and Alcibiades.

For all that many Greek and Roman writers mentioned her in various contexts, it’s difficult to write anything definite about her as a person.

Most of our information comes from Plutarch’s Life of Pericles, written seven centuries after she died. Much of the rest of what we know, and probably much of Plutarch’s information, comes from comedies, not the best source if you want to know the truth and have little to no other context.

What we know as probably true is this:

Aspasia was the daughter of Axiochus* and originally came from Miletus. She was extremely well educated and highly intelligent, which may have been part of the reason she caught the eye of Pericles shortly after she moved to Athens.

The two of them lived together for the rest of his life and had a son, Pericles the Younger.*

She behaved as no proper Athenian wife would, participating in discussions at the symposia.***

Public sentiment towards her was not always positive, and many seem to have blamed her when Athens embroiled itself in a war with Samos on behalf of her home city, Miletus.

Given the Greeks’ concern for the sexual tethering of their women, it is unsurprising that whether she was a hetaera (courtesan) remains up for debate. It is also entirely possible that she trained young hetaerae as well.

Plutarch says, however, that she was so compelling a speaker that men would take their wives to hear her speak despite her disgraceful occupation.

Many scholars call the suggestion made by contemporary sources that she was a brilliant speechwriter and teacher of rhetoric who influenced the works of Socrates, Alcibiades, and Plato a joke. Perhaps it was.

Perhaps it was a case of literate men hiding the fact that a smart woman who was willing to speak publically made them uncomfortable.

Later writers like Plutarch and Cicero, however, took these claims seriously. We can never know the exact truth of Aspasia’s life or the claims made about her, but it’s not just her life that was important.

The interpretation of later writers tells us that no matter what people in her own time though of her, she had an enduring reputation as a highly intelligent and influential woman.

Footnotes:

*Not that we know anything for sure about him other than that he was Aspasia’s father.

**He went on to gain Athenian citizenship, become a general, and then get executed for leaving survivors of a naval battle to drown.

***Men’s drinking parties, where not only some of the behavior you would expect at a modern drinking party took place, but also philosophical discussions and political maneuvering.

Above explanation - and Sources:

Translations of Plutarch's "Life of Pericles" (24.1-6) [I would suggest using the find function]

Plutarch's Parallel Lives - Project Gutenberg (This contains all of Plutarch's Lives.)

Pericles - MIT (This page doesn't divide by sections.)

The Life of Pericles - Penelope.uchicago.edu

Plutarch, Life of Pericles 24.1 - Perseus

Aspasia - Wikipedia
Aspasia - Nexus
Aspasia - Ancient History Encyclopedia

Also blog -

This is a link to a brief video on Aspacia:



Source: Studies Weekly

And who is Phideas:



Phidias or Pheidias (/ˈfɪdiəs/; Greek: Φειδίας, Pheidias; c. 480 – 430 BC) was a Greek sculptor, painter, and architect. His statue of Zeus at Olympia was one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. Phidias also designed the statues of the goddess Athena on the Athenian Acropolis, namely the Athena Parthenos inside the Parthenon, and the Athena Promachos, a colossal bronze which stood between it and the Propylaea,[1] a monumental gateway that served as the entrance to the Acropolis in Athens. Phidias was the son of Charmides of Athens.[2] The ancients believed that his masters were Hegias[3] and Ageladas.[citation needed]

Plutarch[4] discusses Phidias' friendship with the Greek statesman Pericles, recording that enemies of Pericles tried to attack him through Phidias - who was accused of stealing gold intended for the Parthenon's statue of Athena, and of impiously portraying himself and Pericles on the shield of the statue. The historical value of this account, as well as the legend about accusations against the 'Periclean circle', including Aspasia and Anaxagoras, is debatable, but Aristophanes mentions an incident with Phidias around that time.[5]

Phidias is often credited as the main instigator of the Classical Greek sculptural design. Today, most critics and historians consider him one of the greatest of all ancient Greek sculptors.

Note: It appears that these accusations were political but nevertheless the folks that surrounded Pericles had hurt both him and Phidias.

More about what happened to Phidias:

Phidias’s final years are a mystery. Pericles’s enemies accused the sculptor of stealing not only gold but also ivory during the making of Athena Parthenos. According to some authors, while he was supposedly able to prove his innocence on that charge, he was also accused of impiety for his portraits of Pericles and himself on Athena’s shield. Plutarch supported the idea that Phidias may have been guilty, although he states the “theft was not proven,”. The enemies of Pericles, though, remained adamant about the impiety, so Phidias was jailed and died in prison. Apparently, the sculptor’s friendship with Pericles caused him to acquire “one group of enemies on his own account, simply because they were jealous of him…” (172). Plutarch added, “So Phidias was taken off to prison where he died of an illness, although according to some writers Pericles’ enemies arranged for him to die of poisoning, in order to discredit Pericles.” (172).

The sculptor’s presence in Olympia is attested by the discovery of his workshop and the completion of the colossal Zeus gives proof to the fact that he did not die in prison - he may have been exiled or, fearing for his life, fled to Olympia. While he may not have died in prison, many believe he may have been killed by the Eleans. Regarded as the greatest of the Athenian sculptors, it is unfortunate that his memory and craft are only remembered through copies and the testament of contemporary authors. However, he influenced countless artists not only in Greece but also in Rome.

Source: Ancient History Encyclopedia and Wikipedia

The net net is that Hamilton is indicating that Pericles started the war (the Peloponnesian War) because he didn't like the Megarensians who were another city state of Greece (the discord Hamilton is talking about) or to protect himself when Phideas was accused - (his friend) or because he had misused funds (I am laughing at all of this for obvious reasons). That is the gist of one of the paragraphs - Paragraph 4

Hamilton describes in paragraph 3 what causes discord: (I have made the associations to today's world)

Love of Power (Putin, North Korea, Iran, and others)

Desire of an authoritarian personality or regime (Putin and others)

Jealousy of power - (other people want it) - like the different political parties today

Desire of equality and safety (what immigrants, the rust belt and minorities want today)

Rivalry of competition and commerce (like our situation with China and tariffs)

Private Passions - (associating with folks of ill repute or acting in a tempestuous manner)

No scruples - pretending to act on behalf of the people but only acting on behalf of themselves - (I will let folks decide this analogy)

All of the above in paragraph 3 leads to the prostitute (Aspacia) - the friend (Phideas) set up due to his friendship and devotion to Pericles and financial improprieties (real or set up) which led to war to deflect from Pericles' personal issues with all of the above.

Anyway folks - that is what Hamilton is discussing so far in paragraphs 1 through 4. I hope this helps.

Let us hope we do not have a war. And I have no idea how the farmers were able to follow paragraph 4 - they must have been very learned too.

Phidias, Parthenon sculptures

Youtube video:

Source: Smarthistory

In message 20 Bentley interestingly wrote:

Many scholars call the suggestion made by contemporary sources that she [Aspacia] was a brilliant speechwriter and teacher of rhetoric who influenced the works of Socrates, Alcibiades, and Plato a joke. Perhaps it was.

Let's explore this in search of the obscure joke.

I can make clear a version of the joke upon Alcibiades. He was a mess. He was born in Athens, fought for Athens and got expelled, fought for Sparta and got himself expelled, was recalled to Athens and got himself expelled, fought for Persia and got himself expelled. And I think he was recalled to Athens where he was eventually assassinated. So the accusation seems to be he would fight for anyone who paid him. Hence the association with a whore.

Apparently Socrates and Alcibiades were friends, fought as soldiers in arms together and shared a tent in the field. When Socrates was brought up on charges of worshiping false gods and corrupting the young, he had to dissociate himself from Alcibiades in his defense to avoid guilt by association. So perhaps the comparison with Aspacia is to call Socrates' morality into question.

In the case of Plato I find the reference obscure. Best I can do is the condemn Plato for selling out himself. Plato wrote the Socratic dialogues and claimed everything he wrote was a remembrance of discussions he heard from Socrates' lips as a student. Despite the length and detail of many of them. A tradition exists that the later dialogues were Plato's own contribution when he was teacher in his Academy in Athens but used Socrates' reputation to enhance his own views.

For a brief history of Alcibaides which is quite illuminating see:

Jeffrey - Just for everyone's clarity - the quote is not attributed to me but was quoted from the following source - Also blog - ... (I agree with the interpretation of the source however as it applies to Aspacia)

I do not think the ideas of Federalist 6 had that much to do with Socrates and Plato as it did with Pericles, Aspacia and Phideas and the folks around them - and the three allegedly influenced the Peloponnesian War (according to Hamilton)

I think you reference the antagonisms between the various entities which nobody disputes. As far as the prostitute being influential and intelligent - all of the sources seem to agree on that.

I do not want to have a sidebar on Alcibiades which may confuse people. But of course - a brief history of Alcibaides is fine to post. Also to some folks Alcibaides was a traitor and defector.

Anyway let us not digress too much.

OK let us move on to the following paragraphs of Federalist 6:

The ambitious cardinal, who was prime minister to Henry VIII., permitting his vanity to aspire to the triple crown,5 entertained hopes of succeeding in the acquisition of that splendid prize by the influence of the Emperor Charles V. To secure the favor and interest of this enterprising and powerful monarch, he precipitated England into a war with France, contrary to the plainest dictates of policy, and at the hazard of the safety and independence, as well of the kingdom over which he presided by his counsels, as of Europe in general. For if there ever was a sovereign who bid fair to realize the project of universal monarchy, it was the Emperor Charles V., of whose intrigues Wolsey was at once the instrument and the dupe. ¶ Paragraph 5

The influence which the bigotry of one female,6 the petulance of another,7 and the cabals of a third,8 had in the contemporary policy, ferments, and pacifications, of a considerable part of Europe, are topics that have been too often descanted upon not to be generally known. ¶ Paragraph 6

To multiply examples of the agency of personal considerations in the production of great national events, either foreign or domestic, according to their direction, would be an unnecessary waste of time. Those who have but a superficial acquaintance with the sources from which they are to be drawn, will themselves recollect a variety of instances; and those who have a tolerable knowledge of human nature will not stand in need of such lights to form their opinion either of the reality or extent of that agency. Perhaps, however, a reference, tending to illustrate the general principle, may with propriety be made to a case which has lately happened among ourselves. If Shays had not been a desperate debtor, it is much to be doubted whether Massachusetts would have been plunged into a civil war. ¶ Paragraph 7

In the above three paragraphs - Hamilton has moved from Greece to England and finished up in Massachusetts. We will discuss the above next. (Paragraphs 5, 6, 7)

Let us have a sort of who's who for these paragraphs first:

The ambitious cardinal who started the war with France was Cardinal Wolsey:

Who was Cardinal Wolsey?


Portrait of Cardinal Wolsey at Trinity College, University of Cambridge (c. 1585–1596)

Thomas Wolsey (c. March 1473[1] – 29 November 1530; sometimes spelled Woolsey or Wulcy) was an English churchman, statesman and a cardinal of the Catholic Church.

When Henry VIII became King of England in 1509, Wolsey became the King's almoner.[2] Wolsey's affairs prospered, and by 1514 he had become the controlling figure in virtually all matters of state and extremely powerful within the Church, as Archbishop of York, a cleric in England junior only to the Archbishop of Canterbury. His appointment in 1515 as a cardinal by Pope Leo X gave him precedence over all other English clerics.

The highest political position Wolsey attained was Lord Chancellor, the King's chief adviser (formally, as his successor and disciple Thomas Cromwell was not). In that position, he enjoyed great freedom and was often depicted as an alter rex (other king). After failing to negotiate an annulment of Henry's marriage to Catherine of Aragon, Wolsey fell out of favour and was stripped of his government titles. He retreated to York to fulfill his ecclesiastical duties as Archbishop of York, a position he nominally held, but had neglected during his years in government. He was recalled to London to answer to charges of treason—a common charge used by Henry against ministers who fell out of favour—but died on the way from natural causes.

See remainder of article in Wikipedia -

Video:

Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor - Emperor Charles V


Holy Roman Emperor - King of the Romans - King of Italy

Charles V (Spanish: Carlos; German: Karl; Italian: Carlo; Latin: Carolus; Dutch: Karel; French: Charles, [a] 24 February 1500 – 21 September 1558) was ruler of both the Spanish Empire as Charles I from 1516 and the Holy Roman Empire as Charles V from 1519, as well as of the lands of the former Duchy of Burgundy from 1506. He stepped down from these and other positions by a series of abdications between 1554 and 1556. Through inheritance, he brought together under his rule extensive territories in western, central, and southern Europe, and the Spanish viceroyalties in the Americas and Asia. As a result, his domains spanned nearly 4 million square kilometres (1.5 million square miles)[3] and were the first to be described as "the empire on which the sun never sets".[4]

Charles was the heir of three of Europe's leading dynasties: the Houses of Valois-Burgundy (through his paternal grandmother), Habsburg, and Trastámara (his maternal grandparents were the Catholic Monarchs of Spain). Upon the death of his maternal grandmother Queen Isabella I of Castile in 1504, Charles's mother Joanna inherited the kingdom of Castile. She was mentally insane and held little real power, with her father, King Ferdinand II of Aragon, and (briefly) her husband and co-ruler, Philip, Charles's father, serving as regents. Upon the death of Ferdinand V in 1516, Charles and Joanna ruled both Castile and Aragon together, as a unified Spain, although Joanna remained in confinement. Charles inherited the Netherlands and the Free County of Burgundy as heir of the House of Valois-Burgundy. As a Habsburg, he inherited Austria and other lands in central Europe. He was also elected to succeed his grandfather, Maximilian I, as Holy Roman Emperor, a title held by the Habsburgs since 1440. From the Spanish House of Trastámara, he inherited the Crown of Castile, which was developing a nascent empire in the Americas and Asia, and the Crown of Aragon, which included a Mediterranean empire extending to Southern Italy. Charles was the first king to rule Castile and Aragon simultaneously in his own right, and as a result he is often referred to as the first king of Spain.[5] The personal union under Charles of the Holy Roman Empire with the Spanish Empire was the closest Europe would come to a universal monarchy since the death of Louis the Pious (778–840).

Because of widespread fears that his vast inheritance would lead to the realization of a universal monarchy and that he was trying to create a European hegemony, Charles was the object of hostility from many enemies.[6] His reign was dominated by war and particularly by three major simultaneous conflicts: the Habsburg-Valois Wars with France, the struggle to halt the Ottoman advance, and the Protestant Reformation resulting in conflict with the German princes.[7] The wars with France, mainly fought in Italy, resulted in recovery of territory lost at the beginning of his reign and included the decisive defeat and capture of Francis I of France at the Battle of Pavia in 1525. France recovered and the wars continued for the remainder of Charles's reign. Enormously expensive, they led to the development of the first modern professional army in Europe, the Tercios.

The struggle with the Ottoman Empire was fought in Hungary and the Mediterranean. After crushing Hungarian forces in 1526, the Ottomans' advance was halted at their failed Siege of Vienna in 1529. A lengthy war of attrition, conducted on his behalf by his younger brother Ferdinand (who had become king of Hungary), continued for the rest of Charles's reign. In the Mediterranean, although there were some successes, Charles was unable to prevent the Ottomans' increasing naval dominance and the piratical activity of the Barbary corsairs. Charles opposed the Reformation and in Germany he was in conflict with the Protestant Princes of the Schmalkaldic League who were motivated by both religious and political opposition to him. He could not prevent the spread of Protestantism and although he won a decisive victory against the Princes at the Battle of Mühlberg, 1547, he was ultimately forced to concede the Peace of Augsburg of 1555, which divided Germany on denominational lines.

While Charles did not typically concern himself with rebellions, he was quick to put down three particularly dangerous rebellions in the vital territories of Castile, the Frisian lands, and later in his reign in the city of Ghent. Once the rebellions were quelled the essential Castilian and Burgundian territories remained mostly loyal to Charles throughout his rule.

Charles's Spanish dominions were the chief source of his power and wealth, and they became increasingly important as his reign progressed. In the Americas, Charles sanctioned the conquest by Castillian conquistadores of the Aztec and Inca empires. Castillian control was extended across much of South and Central America. The resulting vast expansion of territory and the flows of South American silver to Castile had profound long term effects on Spain.

Charles was only 56 when he abdicated, but after 40 years of energetic rule he was physically exhausted and sought the peace of a monastery, where he died at the age of 58. Upon Charles's abdications, the Holy Roman Empire was inherited by his younger brother Ferdinand, who had already been given the Austrian lands in 1521. The Spanish Empire, including the possessions in the Netherlands and Italy, was inherited by Charles's son Philip II of Spain. The two empires would remain allies until the 18th century (when the Spanish branch of the House of Habsburg became extinct).

Remainder of article:

Source: Wikipedia

Note: So as not to get confused which is easy to do when everybody is named the same name: Charles V ruled from (1500-1558). There were seven rulers of the Holy Roman Empire who were named Charles. The first was Charlemagne, the founder of the empire, whose name means "Charles the Great." Of the other six, Charles V is especially notable for his widespread holdings and eventful reign. Charles V is the one we are talking about in reference to Federalist 6. Hamilton is really keeping us hopping with his references to all of these different countries, personages, conflicts, etc. Here we are talking about Charles Hapsburg known as Carlos I in Spain and Charles V in the rest of Europe. Hence we can see some of the confusion.

Here is a video which discusses Charles V and the Holy Roman Empire - Crash Course in World History:



Source: Youtube

What war did Wolsey get Charles V and Henry VIII involved in?

Italian War of 1521–26

Article:

Source: Wikipedia

Who are the three females being referred to in paragraph 6?

Obviously Hamilton in this essay was not seeing women in a favorable light.

bigotry of one female - Madame de Maintenon.
petulance of another - Duchess of Marlborough.
the cabals of a third - Madame de Pompadour.

We will go over these three further.

The rebellion referred to in Paragraph 7 was the Shay's Rebellion.

The next paragraphs of the essay: - Paragraphs 8 - 13

But notwithstanding the concurring testimony of experience, in this particular, there are still to be found visionary or designing men, who stand ready to advocate the paradox of perpetual peace between the States, though dismembered and alienated from each other. The genius of republics (say they) is pacific; the spirit of commerce has a tendency to soften the manners of men, and to extinguish those inflammable humors which have so often kindled into wars. Commercial republics, like ours, will never be disposed to waste themselves in ruinous contentions with each other. They will be governed by mutual interest, and will cultivate a spirit of mutual amity and concord. ¶ - Paragraph 8

Is it not (we may ask these projectors in politics) the true interest of all nations to cultivate the same benevolent and philosophic spirit? If this be their true interest, have they in fact pursued it? Has it not, on the contrary, invariably been found that momentary passions, and immediate interest, have a more active and imperious control over human conduct than general or remote considerations of policy, utility or justice? Have republics in practice been less addicted to war than monarchies? Are not the former administered by men as well as the latter? Are there not aversions, predilections, rivalships, and desires of unjust acquisitions, that affect nations as well as kings? Are not popular assemblies frequently subject to the impulses of rage, resentment, jealousy, avarice, and of other irregular and violent propensities? Is it not well known that their determinations are often governed by a few individuals in whom they place confidence, and are, of course, liable to be tinctured by the passions and views of those individuals? Has commerce hitherto done anything 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? Have there not been as many wars founded upon commercial motives since that has become the prevailing system of nations, as were before occasioned by the cupidity of territory or dominion? Has not the spirit of commerce, in many instances, administered new incentives to the appetite, both for the one and for the other? Let experience, the least fallible guide of human opinions, be appealed to for an answer to these inquiries. ¶ - Paragraph 9

Sparta, Athens, Rome, and Carthage were all republics; two of them, Athens and Carthage, of the commercial kind. Yet were they as often engaged in wars, offensive and defensive, as the neighboring monarchies of the same times. Sparta was little better than a well-regulated camp; and Rome was never sated of carnage and conquest. ¶ - Paragraph 10

Carthage, though a commercial republic, was the aggressor in the very war that ended in her destruction. Hannibal had carried her arms into the heart of Italy and to the gates of Rome, before Scipio, in turn, gave him an overthrow in the territories of Carthage, and made a conquest of the commonwealth. ¶ - Paragraph 11

Venice, in later times, figured more than once in wars of ambition, till, becoming an object to the other Italian states, Pope Julius II. found means to accomplish that formidable league,9 which gave a deadly blow to the power and pride of this haughty republic. ¶ Paragraph 12

The provinces of Holland, till they were overwhelmed in debts and taxes, took a leading and conspicuous part in the wars of Europe. They had furious contests with England for the dominion of the sea, and were among the most persevering and most implacable of the opponents of Louis XIV. ¶ - Paragraph 13

Paragraph 8
Discussion of designing men versus republics

Paragraph 9 - why don't nations cultivate a benevolent and kindly spirit? Hamilton then asks all of the questions which show quite the opposite about separate nations.

Paragraph 10 - Sparta, Athens, Rome, and Carthage - all republics - Athens and Carthage were commercial; Sparta was just a military camp and Rome was aggressive and warlike.

Paragraph 11 - Carthage started the war that ruined her -
Background = The Battle of Zama—fought in 202 BC near Zama (Tunisia)—This marked the end of the Second Punic War. A Roman army led by Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus (Scipio), with crucial support from Numidian leader Masinissa, defeated the Carthaginian army led by the commander Hannibal. Hannibal's force was greater in numbers than Scipio's, and he had eighty war elephants. However, many in Hannibal's army were recent conscripts, and the Romans had superior cavalry, as most of the vaunted Numidian cavalry which Hannibal had employed with great success in Italy had by then switched sides to the Romans.

Scipio's troops did not mass together to oppose the elephants, but instead blew their horns loudly, opened their ranks to let the elephants charge through, and pelted the elephants with missiles, confusing and defeating them. His main force then routed the Carthaginian infantry, assisted by the cavalry who had pursued the Carthaginian cavalry off the field and returned to attack the infantry force. Defeated on their home ground, the Carthaginian ruling elite sued for peace and accepted humiliating terms, ending the 17-year war.

Paragraph 12 - discusses Venice - described as haughty, proud and ambitious and Pope Julius II

Hamilton is making reference to the War of the League of Cambrai or the War of the Holy League

Background:

The War of the League of Cambrai, sometimes known as the War of the Holy League and by several other names,[1] was a major conflict in the Italian Wars. The main participants of the war, fought from 1508 to 1516, were France, the Papal States and the Republic of Venice; they were joined, at various times, by nearly every significant power in Western Europe, including Spain, the Holy Roman Empire, England, Scotland, the Duchy of Milan, Florence, the Duchy of Ferrara and Swiss mercenaries.

Pope Julius II, intending to curb Venetian influence in northern Italy, had created the League of Cambrai, an anti-Venetian alliance consisting of himself, Louis XII of France, Ferdinand II of Aragon and Maximilian I, the Holy Roman Emperor. Although the League was initially successful, friction between Julius and Louis caused it to collapse by 1510; Julius then allied himself with Venice against France.

The Veneto–Papal alliance eventually expanded into the Holy League, which drove the French from Italy in 1512; disagreements about the division of the spoils, however, led Venice to abandon the alliance in favor of one with France. Under the leadership of Francis I, who had succeeded Louis to the throne, the French and Venetians would, through victory at Marignano in 1515, regain the territory they had lost; the treaties of Noyon and Brussels, which ended the war the next year, would essentially return the map of Italy to the status quo of 1508.

Paragraph 13 - discussed Holland - debts and taxes were their issues because they had so many wars in Europe. Contests with England over naval power and did not get along with Louis XIV of France.

War discussed - Franco-Dutch War

Background:

From the 1560s, France and the Dutch Republic considered themselves to be allies until 1668 when the Dutch Republic formed the Triple Alliance with the Kingdom of England and the Swedish Empire to revolt against Louis XIV of France's expansion in the War of Devolution in support of the Spanish Empire, whom France succeeded as the strongest nation in Europe.[2][3] Feeling betrayed by the Dutch Republic, Louis realized that the Dutch Republic would hinder France in conquering the Spanish Netherlands.[4]

In 1672, Louis was able to convince the Kingdom of England and the Swedish Empire to fight against the Dutch Republic, as Louis had agreed to financially support England.[5] England has already fought in two wars against the Dutch Empire (the First and Second Anglo-Dutch Wars in 1652–1654 and 1665–1667, respectively), prior to their agreement in the Triple Alliance.

Franco-Dutch War
The Franco-Dutch War occurred in 1672–1678, shortly after the Kingdom of England and the Swedish Empire betrayed the Dutch Republic and supported France, disbanding the Triple Alliance. 1672 is considered by the Dutch as the "Disaster Year" (Rampjaar).

Supporting the Spanish Empire, the Dutch Republic was joined by the Margraviate of Brandenburg and the Holy Roman Empire, while the French army expanded through its alliance with the prince-bishops of Münster and Cologne. Prior to the French army's arrival into the Rhine, England had declared their third "navigation war" on the Dutch Republic (Third Anglo-Dutch War) in an attempt of a naval attack, but efforts were was thwarted by Dutch admiral Michiel de Ruyter. By June 1672, France had established fortifications within the Rhine, including Rheinberg, Wesel, and Utrecht, and Münsterans began attacking the north, particularly Groningen. The following month, William of Nassau (the later William III) was acclaimed stadtholder.[6] Upon arrival at the Lower Rhine region, the French army began retreating after witnessing the Imperial and Brandenburgian armies. By December, the Dutch were able to liberate a number of occupied territories in the north after the French had retreated while crossing the Dutch Water Line. However, in late 1673, the French army succeeded in capturing Bonn. In February 1674, the Kingdom of England and the Dutch Empire, along with the prince-bishops of Münster and Cologne, signed the Treaty of Westminster, ending the Third Anglo-Dutch War. In August 1674, the Dutch-German-Spanish army entered the territory of northern France, under the command of William III of Orange, where they were met by the French army commanded by Louis II de Condé. In Seneffe, Condé blocked the Dutch-German-Spanish army by detaching about 500 horsemen to keep the Dutch vanguard busy, surrounding the Dutch-German-Spanish army and resulting to a tactical French victory. This became known as the Battle of Seneffe.[7] In 1675, the Swedish army invaded Brandenburg. In March 1678, the French army had entered the Spanish Netherlands and besieged Ghent.[8]

Later that year until 1679, the Treaties of Nijmegen were signed between France, the Dutch Republic, the Holy Roman Empire, the Spanish Empire, the Prince-Bishopric of Münster, and the Swedish Empire, ending the Franco-Dutch War with the Franche-Comté and the Spanish Netherlands belonging to France, making them Europe's strongest power. The war sparked the rivalry between William III, who later conquered England as part of the Glorious Revolution, and Louis XIV, which intensified in the subsequent Nine Years' War (1688–97) and the War of the Spanish Succession (1701–14), both of which the Dutch Republic supported the coalition against the Kingdom of France. Unfortunately for the Dutch Republic, the war also resulted in the decline of the republic's dominance in overseas trade.[9]

Sources: All Wikipedia

Here are the remaining paragraphs:

In the government of Britain the representatives of the people compose one branch of the national legislature. Commerce has been for ages the predominant pursuit of that country. Few nations, nevertheless, have been more frequently engaged in war; and the wars in which that kingdom has been engaged have, in numerous instances, proceeded from the people. ¶ Paragraph 14

There have been, if I may so express it, almost as many popular as royal wars. The cries of the nation and the importunities of their representatives have, upon various occasions, dragged their monarchs into war, or continued them in it, contrary to their inclinations, and sometimes contrary to the real interests of the State. In that memorable struggle for superiority between the rival houses of Austria and Bourbon, which so long kept Europe in a flame, it is well known that the antipathies of the English against the French, seconding the ambition, or rather the avarice, of a favorite leader,10 protracted the war beyond the limits marked out by sound policy, and for a considerable time in opposition to the views of the court. ¶ - Paragraph 15

The wars of these two last-mentioned nations have in a great measure grown out of commercial considerations,—the desire of supplanting and the fear of being supplanted, either in particular branches of traffic or in the general advantages of trade and navigation. ¶ Paragraph 16

From this summary of what has taken place in other countries, whose situations have borne the nearest resemblance to our own, what reason can we have to confide in those reveries which would seduce us into an expectation of peace and cordiality between the members of the present confederacy, in a state of separation? Have we not already seen enough of the fallacy and extravagance of those idle theories which have amused us with promises of an exemption from the imperfections, weaknesses and evils incident to society in every shape? Is it not time to awake from the deceitful dream of a golden age, and to adopt as a practical maxim for the direction of our political conduct that we, as well as the other inhabitants of the globe, are yet remote from the happy empire of perfect wisdom and perfect virtue? ¶ Paragraph 17

Let the point of extreme depression to which our national dignity and credit have sunk, let the inconveniences felt everywhere from a lax and ill administration of government, let the revolt of a part of the State of North Carolina, the late menacing disturbances in Pennsylvania, and the actual insurrections and rebellions in Massachusetts, declare—! ¶ Paragraph 18

So far is the general sense of mankind from corresponding with the tenets of those who endeavor to lull asleep our apprehensions of discord and hostility between the States, in the event of disunion, that it has from long observation of the progress of society become a sort of axiom in politics, that vicinity or nearness of situation, constitutes nations natural enemies. An intelligent writer expresses himself on this subject to this effect: Neighboring nations (says he) are naturally enemies of each other unless their common weakness forces them to league in a confederate republic, and their constitution prevents the differences that neighborhood occasions, extinguishing that secret jealousy which disposes all states to aggrandize themselves at the expense of their neighbors.11 This passage, at the same time, points out the evil and suggests the remedy. ¶ Paragraph 19

Paragraph 14 deals with Britain - successful at commerce - always at war

Paragraph 15 - Royal Wars - houses of Austria and Bourbon have kept Europe engulfed in conflict. The English do not get along with the French

Paragraph 16 - England and France - at war constantly due to trade and navigation

Paragraph 17 - Hamilton asks why should our fate be any different than these other countries we are so similar to?

Paragraph 18 - Hamilton states that our dignity and credit have sank and that the constitution is a way to make America great again. And that the previous government (Articles of Confederation) were lax and weak. Discussed the revolt in parts of North Carolina, Pennsylvania disturbances, and the Shay's Rebellion in Massachusetts.

- What Hamilton is trying to accomplish - confederate republic

Noted quote: Neighboring nations (says he) are naturally enemies of each other unless their common weakness forces them to league in a confederate republic, and their constitution prevents the differences that neighborhood occasions, extinguishing that secret jealousy which disposes all states to aggrandize themselves at the expense of their neighbors.

There is so much to discuss here but I wanted to give an outline of the discussion highlights.

First we will discover the other females that Hamilton seems to take exception to:

This one is Number Two after Aspacia who was also obviously not a favorite of Mr. Hamilton either:

Bigotry of one female - Madame de Maintenon

This lady was the following:

Françoise d'Aubigné, Marquise de Maintenon
Louis XIV of France's wife

What do we know about her? Her marriage was considered morganatic - meaning she was of a lesser noble family.



"Françoise d'Aubigné, Marquise de Maintenon (27 November 1635 – 15 April 1719) was the second wife of King Louis XIV of France. She was known during her first marriage as Madame Scarron, and subsequently as Madame de Maintenon. Her marriage to the king was never officially announced or admitted, as it was morganatic, and thus she was never considered Queen consort of France. Even so, she was very influential at court, and was one of the king's closest advisers. She founded the Maison royale de Saint-Louis, a school for girls from poorer noble families, in 1684".

Remainder of article:

There was of course the fact that she may have been born in or just outside the prison at Niort because her father, the Huguenot Constant d'Aubigné, was incarcerated there for conspiring against Cardinal Richelieu. Her mother, Jeanne de Cardilhac, was the daughter of Constant's jailer - that too. And she had been brought up Protestant even though she had been baptized Catholic. I am surprised at Hamilton's biases considering his beginnings but that often happens when somebody rises above their humble origins and does not want to be reminded of the fact. But she ended up being raised by the nuns.

What was her bigotry?

Well she did marry Scarron who was an accomplished poet and novelist, who counted Marie de Hautefort, a favourite of King Louis XIII, among his patrons.

He offered her marriage, or to pay her dowry so that she might enter a convent. Although Scarron suffered from acute and crippling pain, possibly from polio, she accepted his proposal and became Madame Scarron in 1652. The match permitted her to gain access to the highest levels of Paris society, something that would have otherwise been impossible for a girl from an impoverished background and she did take care of him until his passing. The dowager queen continued to pay her after Scarron's death and even increased the payments. It does not appear to me that she had done anything horrendous yet.

The payments were stopped by Louis XIV after the death of the queen dowager. So Scarron's widow had nothing to live on again.

She became a governess and even the queen liked her and she had to support herself and was given a title and was able to buy a property. Some how she ended up marrying the king who had cut her off originally but the marriage though it did take place was not recognized. She was however very influential. And she was very religious. But there is always another story and that story line had that she was a ruthless schemer. I have still not found the bigotry that Hamilton speaks of unless it is the secret alliance that she had with the King before they were married.

That is a possibility.

The Britannica portrayed her as others have done but the last sentence was probably the only indication that I have found of the bigotry connection - "Hated by some, revered by others, Maintenon never ceased to kindle violent emotions. To this day she is depicted in textbooks as greedy and evil, a narrow-minded bigot. It would be true to say that she was an ambitious woman who had an exceptional destiny and did not do too badly with it. Her letters are still read with interest, and, in his exile at St. Helena, Napoleon I professed to prefer them to those of Mme de Sévigné.

It could have something to do with the fact that she had been Catholic - then Protestant - and then Catholic and maybe the Huguenots during their troubles blamed her. And called her a bigot.

Note: One thing I want to add is that John Jay and John Paul Jones - All have one thing in common - they were descended from the Huguenots who came here from France during the colonial period to enjoy religious freedom. So possibly Hamilton heard "stuff" from John Jay.. but John Jay did not write this essay - Hamilton did.

More:




Other sources for the above - Wikipedia if not otherwise sourced

Video which may be interesting:

Women in History: Portraits of Duchess of Devonshire, Marquise de Maintenon & Louise de Bourbon



Source: Youtube

Who is the number three female on Hamilton's list?

petulance of another - Duchess of Marlborough. (which one?)

It is probably this one:


Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough, by Charles Jervas, after 1714

"Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough (née Jenyns, spelt Jennings in most modern references; 5 June 1660 (Old Style) – 18 October 1744) rose to be one of the most influential women of her time through her close friendship with Queen Anne of Great Britain.

Sarah's friendship and influence with Princess Anne was widely known, and leading public figures often turned their attentions to her in the hope that she would influence Anne to comply with requests.

As a result, by the time Anne became queen, Sarah’s knowledge of government, and intimacy with the Queen, had made her a powerful friend and a dangerous enemy.

Sarah enjoyed a "long and devoted" relationship with her husband of more than 40 years, John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough.

She acted as Anne's agent after Anne's father, James II, was deposed during the Glorious Revolution; and she promoted her interests during the rule of James's successors, William III and Mary II. When Anne came to the throne after William's death in 1702, the Duke of Marlborough, together with Sidney Godolphin, the first Earl of Godolphin, rose to head the government, partly owing to his wife's friendship with the Queen. While the Duke was out of the country commanding troops in the War of the Spanish Succession, Sarah kept him informed of court intrigue, while he sent her requests and political advice, which she would then convey to the Queen.

Sarah tirelessly campaigned on behalf of the Whigs, while also devoting much of her time to building projects such as Blenheim Palace.

Sarah, a strong-willed woman who liked to get her own way, tried the Queen's patience whenever she disagreed with her on political, court or church appointments. After her final break with Anne in 1711, Sarah and her husband were dismissed from the court, but she had her revenge under the Hanoverians following Anne's death.

She had famous subsequent disagreements with many important people, including her daughter the second Duchess of Marlborough; the architect of Blenheim Palace, John Vanbrugh; prime minister Robert Walpole; King George II; and his wife, Queen Caroline. The money she inherited from the Marlborough trust left her one of the richest women in Europe.

She died in 1744 at the age of eighty-four.

Remainder of article:


More:
A telling excerpt: "Although the Duchess of Marlborough’s downfall is chiefly attributed to her selfish and self-serving relationship with Queen Anne, she was a vibrant and intelligent woman, who loyally promoted Anne's interests when she was princess.

Anne was a dull conversationalist and Sarah did not find her company stimulating. Sarah believed that she had a right to enforce her political advice, whether Anne personally liked it or not, and became angry if she stubbornly refused to take it.

She seems to have underestimated Anne's strength of character, continuing to believe she could dominate a woman whom foreign Ambassadors noted had become "very determined and quite ferocious".

Apart from her notorious bad temper, Sarah's main weakness has been described as "an almost pathological inability to admit the validity of anyone else's point of view".

Winston Churchill and Diana, Princess of Wales were her descendants.

Video:

Sarah Churchill Duchess of Marlborough video:
Excerpt from the historical monologue "400 Years of English History" presented by artist/historian George S. Stuart as part of an exhibit of his Historical Figures at the Ventura County Museum of Art and History in Ventura California.

This is an entire lesson from Khan Academy and it actually helps prove Hamilton's point about city states of the Greeks in comparison to the 13 colonies and what they may become without a strong central government uniting them: - Khan Academy is excellent

600 BCE - 600 CE Second-Wave Civilizations

This period lays the foundation for much of civilization as we know it today. The classical Greeks lay the cultural foundation for Western civilization. The Achaemenid Persians under Cyrus unify much of the Middle East and Egypt. Alexander the Great unifies Greece with Persia. Later, the Roman Empire dominates the Mediterranean and Europe.

The Greek polis

Greek city-states developed different forms of governance with very different political structures and strengths.

Greek colonization led to the spread of the Greek language and Greek culture, but it also resulted in tensions with the neighboring Persian empire, culminating in the Persian Wars.

Athens developed democratic institutions and a culture of philosophy, science, and culture; it emerged as a powerful state and allied with other city-states, forming the Delian League.

Resistance to Athens’ power among the other Greek city-states, particularly Sparta, prompted the Peloponnesian War.

The rise of the polis

The territory of Greece is mountainous; as a result, ancient Greece consisted of many smaller regions, each with its own dialect, cultural peculiarities, and identity. Regionalism and regional conflicts were a prominent feature of ancient Greece.

Cities tended to be located in valleys between mountains or on coastal plains and dominated the countryside around them.

According to the legendary poet Homer, whose historical authenticity is debated, around 1200 BCE, the Mycenaeans were involved in a conflict with the city of Troy in Anatolia, called the Trojan war.

As Homer wrote in his famous work, the Iliad, at the same time as the war, various foreign “Sea Peoples” began invading Mycenaean settlements, prompting the inhabitants to migrate to islands in the Aegean, Anatolia, and Cyprus.

At that time, writing seemed to have disappeared, and life in the Greek peninsula and Greek islands was characterized by conflict and instability.

A map of Greece showing the Aegean, Cretan, and Adriatic seas. Various ancient Greek city-states are depicted in bright colors. The map shows some of the many city-states and includes the places that various characters from The Iliad and The Odyssey are supposed to have come from.

This instability was the context for the emergence of Greek city-states. Without a powerful, centralized state, smaller governing bodies created political order. One such type of governing body was the city-state or polis. Initially, the term polis referred to a fortified area or citadel which offered protection during times of war.

Because of the relative safety these structures afforded, people flocked to them and set up communities and commercial centers.

Over time, poleis—the plural of polis—became urban centers whose power and influence extended to the surrounding agricultural regions, which provided resources and paid taxes.

By around 800 BCE, there were many poleis which functioned independently. In response to their own specific contexts, each city-state created a different form of governance, ranging from monarchies and oligarchies to militaristic societies and proto-democracies.

Monarchies were sometimes ruled by a tyrant—a ruler who did not follow any set laws.

Oligarchies were small groups of powerful individuals who ran city-state government. Oligarchs and tyrants often competed for power.

Democracies were governments that allowed citizens to vote on and participate in making state decisions.

Some of the most important city-states were Athens, Sparta, Thebes, Corinth, and Delphi.

Of these, Athens and Sparta were the two most powerful city-states. Athens was a democracy and Sparta had two kings and an oligarchic system, but both were important in the development of Greek society and culture.

What were some of the effects of the lack of a powerful central state?

Sparta

Located in a fertile area of the Peloponnesus, a peninsula in southern Greece, Sparta’s population steadily grew between 800 and 600 BCE.

As Sparta developed a complex and strong economy, it extended its power throughout the Peloponnesus and brought the people of neighboring villages under its control.

The people in these villages, however, were not accorded equal status with Spartans. Instead, they became helots, who were a class of unfree laborers.

Unlike enslaved people who were owned privately, helots were subjects of the Spartan state. They were able to have families and exercised some degree of freedom, but they were tied to the land and were required to supply Sparta with food.

Spartans expended vast resources to develop a powerful and structured military apparatus to prevent and subdue rebellions.
Though there was a very sharp distinction between Spartans and helots, Spartan society itself did not have a complex social hierarchy, at least in theory.

Instead of wealth being a distinguishing marker, social status was determined by military achievements. Strength and discipline were emphasized, even in children at a very young age. At age seven, Spartan boys were separated from their families and sent to live in military barracks, where they underwent serious military training, leading up to active service when they were barely out of their teens.

Though Spartan society did not have a rigid social hierarchy, it still had some influential groups. Like all Greek societies, Sparta was dominated by male citizens, and the most powerful of these came from a select group of families. The Spartan political system was unusual in that it had two hereditary kings from two separate families. These monarchs were particularly powerful when one of them led the army on campaign.

The kings were also priests of Zeus, and they sat on the council of elders known as the gerousia, which was also the highest court in Sparta. There was also an executive committee of five ephors chosen by lot from the citizen body, able only to serve for a maximum of one year after which point they were ineligible for future office. Two of the ephors also accompanied one of the kings when on campaign. Just how these different political elements interacted is not known for certain, but clearly a degree of consensus was necessary for the state apparatus to function.

Women in Sparta had more rights than women in other Greek city-states. In Sparta, they could own property, which they often gained through dowries and inheritances.

Some women became rich when the men in their families were killed in war. In fact, women eventually controlled nearly half of Spartan land. In addition, Spartan women could move around with reasonable freedom, wear non-constricting clothing, enjoy athletics, and even drink wine.

How were Spartan helots different from enslaved people?
How was social status primarily determined in Sparta?

Athens

Athens emerged as the dominant economic power in Greece around the late sixth century BCE, its power and wealth was further bolstered by the discovery of silver in the neighboring mountains.

Athens was at the center of an efficient trading system with other Greek city states. Trade was incredibly important for Athens, as it did not have the agricultural conditions to cultivate enough grain for its population.

Athens transitioned through different systems of government as its population grew and became wealthier through maritime trade.

This wealth became increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few members of the aristocracy, who were also political leaders, leaving other members of society in debt, sometimes to the point of being forced into debt slavery. Further, there was a perceived lack of consistency among the laws of the city.

The first series of laws written to address these inequities was provided by the statesman Draco around 621 BCE, but the laws were considered too severe—the penalty for most infractions was death! This is where we get the term draconian!

An aristocrat named Solon was called upon to modify and revise these harsh laws; he created a series of laws which equalized political power. Two of the changes for which Solon was responsible were the cancellation of debts and the abolition of debt slavery. He also created opportunities for some common people to participate in the government of Athens. In doing so, Solon laid the groundwork for democracy in Athens.

Pericles led Athens between 461 and 429 BCE; he was an incredibly well-liked leader known for encouraging culture, philosophy, and science and for advocating for the common people.

Under Pericles, Athens entered its golden age and great thinkers, writers, and artists flourished in the city. Herodotus—the “father of history”—lived and wrote in Athens. Socrates—the “father of philosophy”—taught in the marketplace. Hippocrates—“the father of medicine”—practiced there. The sculptor Phidias created his great works for the Parthenon on the Acropolis and the Temple of Zeus at Olympia. Democritus envisioned an atomic universe. Aeschylus, Euripides, Aristophanes, and Sophocles wrote their famous plays. This legacy continued as, later, Plato founded his Academy outside the walls of Athens in 385 BCE and, even later, Aristotle's Lyceum was founded in the city center.

Still, Athenian democracy was limited to its male citizens. Foreigners, enslaved people, and women were excluded from these institutions. Women’s roles were largely confined to the private sphere, where they were responsible for raising children and managing the household, including enslaved people if the household could afford them.

While women of the upper classes were often literate, most were not likely to receive an education beyond what was needed for the execution of their domestic duties. They required male chaperones to travel in public.

Enslaved people, while not involved in political affairs, were integral to the Athenian economy. They cultivated food, worked large construction projects, and labored in mines and quarries. Enslaved people were present in most Athenian households, carrying out an array of domestic duties.

Where does the term draconian come from?

Colonization and the Persian Wars

Due to the increasing populations of the city states and the insufficient resources available, many Greeks began to look outward and create settlements outside of mainland Greece. Between the eighth and sixth centuries, hundreds of colonies were established on the coasts of the Mediterranean and Black seas. Later, Greek communities would settle in modern-day Sicily and southern Italy, even as far as modern-day southern France. Eventually, more Greeks lived in these settlements than on mainland Greece.

The map shows Phoenician influence, Greek influence, Greek colonization, Phoenician homelands, Greek homelands, and Phoenician trade from the Iberian Peninsula in Spain east to Egypt and the Levant.

Greek colonization invigorated the networks of trade and exchange throughout the Mediterranean. Greek language and culture spread throughout the region. However, it also brought conflict and tensions with the Persian empire, inaugurating the two-decade long Persian Wars from 500 to 479 BCE. As Persia consolidated its control over its conquests in Anatolia, Greek communities living in that area, called Ionia, resisted Persian rule. To support the Ionian Greeks, the Athenians sent their impressive fleet, which prompted retribution from the Persians.

The ensuing conflict drew in other Greek city-states, most notably, Sparta. Conflict between the Greeks and Persians continued for over 100 years.

The Delian league and the Peloponnesian War

Though the Greek city-states were unified to some extent in the face of an external threat, as that threat waned, conflicts between the city-states made a resurgence.

Following the wars, Athens emerged as the supreme naval power in Greece. It formed the Delian League, ostensibly to create a cohesive Greek network among city-states to ward off further Persian attacks.

Under the leadership of Pericles, Athens grew so powerful that the Athenian Empire could effectively dictate the laws, customs, and trade of all her neighbors in Attica and the islands of the Aegean.

The Athenian strategy was to defend on land, launch an on-sea offensive, and continue foreign trade. The Spartan strategy was to launch an on-land offensive.

The Alliances of the Peloponnesian War

The might of the Athenian Empire encouraged an arrogance in Athenian policy makers of the day which grew intolerable to the other city-states.

When Athens sent troops to help Sparta put down a Helot rebellion, the Spartans refused the gesture and sent the Athenian force back home in dishonor, thus provoking the war which had long been brewing.

Later, when Athens sent their fleet to help defend its ally Cocyra—Corfu—against a Corinthian invasion during the Battle of Sybota in 433 BCE, their action was interpreted by Sparta as aggression instead of assistance, as Corinth was an ally of Sparta.

The Peloponnesian War—which took place between 431 and 404 BCE between Athens and Sparta, though it involved directly or indirectly all of Greece—ended in disaster for Athens when it was defeated.

Its empire and wealth decimated, its walls destroyed, only Athen’s reputation as a great seat of learning and culture prevented the sack of the city and the enslavement of the populace.

All of the above from Khan Academy

This is a map which shows the alliances of the Peloponnesian War.


The Alliances of the Peloponnesian War.

Source: Khan Academy and Wikipedia

This map Greek and Phoenician colonization from 800 - 550 BCE


Greek and Phoenician colonization from 800 - 550 BCE. Image credit: Ancient History Encyclopedia

Source: Khan Academy

Map of some of the many city-states of Ancient Greece


This map shows some of the many city-states of ancient Greece and includes the places that various characters from The Iliad and the Odyssey are supposed to have come from. Image credit: Wikipedia, Creative Commons 3.0 license, Pinpin

Source: Khan Academy and Wikipedia

The above map shows the problem that Hamilton was trying to warn against in Federalist 6.

I have to ask how the ordinary farmers (the Anti Federalists) were able to discern all of the historical illusions and comparisons made by Hamilton in this essay. This one is loaded.

Your thoughts?

Folks - there are a lot of you on here with me - please jot down your thoughts and let us discuss - do not be shy.

Federalist #6

1. My Citizen U - youtube video - - a bit cheesy and short on details

2. Ben Shapiro Explains The Federalist Papers 6 - Why a Centralized Government? (AUDIO) - he talks a mile a minute.

Hamilton debunks democratic peace theory and debunks peace among entities doing commerce - talks about human frailty, human weaknesses and human flaws.

Hamilton debunks the theory that being a democracy does not mean that you do not go to war or be drawn into wars.

Shapiro makes the point that all fascist governments started out under democratic auspices before power was either seized or democratic means were used to elevate a bad guy to power.

Sparta, Athens, Rome, Carthage were all republics - Athens and Carthage were the commercial kind but they were also engaged in power conflicts as were the neighboring monarchies at the same time meaning being a commercial republic is not going to save you.

These countries are like us so why should we think that our results will be any different than the history of these republics. If we do not have a strong centralized government - our states will be fighting each other in 5 seconds.

There will always be conflict and that is why we must band together against all outsiders instead of banding together against each other.

Hamilton wants you to wake up from the deceitful dream of a golden age. The founders were the ultimate realists and that is why their words are so important. Link:

Source: Youtube