David
Sat January 3, 2004 8:19pm
|
12 Gauge Shotgun
Function: Manually operated (pump), repeating shotgun.
History: Various models of shotgun have been in service use since 1901. The current inventory consists of four different 12 gauge shotgun models: Remington 870, Winchester 1200, Mossberg 500, and Mossberg 590 (weight and length of the weapon depend on the manufacturer.
Description: The 12 gauge shotgun is a manually operated (pump), repeating shotgun, with a seven-round tubular magazine, a modified choke barrel, ghost ring sights, and is equipped with a bayonet attachment, sling swivels and a standard length military stock with phenolic plastic buttplate (some models have wooden and/or folding stocks). This special purpose individual weapon is used for guard duty, prisoner supervision, local security, riot control, and any situation which requires the use of armed personnel with inherent limited range and ammunition penetration.
General Characteristics, 12 Gauge Shotgun
Length:
41.75 inches (106.05 centimeters)
Weight:
8 pounds (3.63 kilograms)
Bore Diameter:
12 gauge
Maximum Effective Range:
50 yards (45.7 meters) with "00" buckshot load
Unit Replacement Cost:
$600
Date Deployed:
January 1964
|
|
David
Thu January 8, 2004 3:03pm
|
Air Force Air Transport C
The Air Force Air Transport Command (AFATC) shoulder patch was changed from the design previously used by its parent unit the Air Force Ferrying Command. This modified patch would be of the same general design but would be silver, instead of gold, and the morse code would read "AFATC" instead of the "AFFC". The design of the shoulder patch suggests a stylized aircraft being ferried from east to west over a portion of the globe. The design is based on a Presidential Directive from Franklin D. Roosevelt (as Commander in Chief) ordering that ircraft be ferried for delivery to the British "with the greatest possible speed." It should be noted that the short and long red and blue lines extending from the globe to the tip of the wing form the Morse code letters and were part of the originally approved design. Although the QMG made no mention of the new "cloth" insignia just the metal insignia, it is believed that these patches were worn by local approval only.
The AFATC was established on June 20th, 1942, as a successor Command to the SAir Forces Ferrying Command with Headquarters in Washington, D.C. The Ferrying Division of AFATC took charge of all ferrying operations and continured this missiion of ferrying aircraft to foreign and domestic destinations and often delivered 8,000 aircraft monthly. AFATC was also made responsible for transporting all War Department personnel, material, and mail (escept for areas served by Troop Carrier Units). In addition, AFATC was given the control, operation, and maintenance for all air route facilities and establishments in effect, the AFATC became "an agency in which the War Department had centered a;ll responsibbility for the development of air transport." To accomplish its mission, AFATC established a network of over 200 bases along 100,000 miles of overseas routes and 35,000 miles of domestic routes. Aircraft from civilian carriers were contracted (Air Carrier Contracat Personnel)) and added to the Command, ad passenger service became a major function of AFATC. With the addition of overseas wings to the Command, the prompt delivery of cargo to combat areas in any theater of operations became "one of the most significant developments of the war." While statistics do not indicat4 how many battles were won by the prompt delivery of priority cargo to the battlefront by the Air Transport Command, history reveals that no battle was ever lost because of a lack of support from the men of this fine unit.
|
|
David
Thu October 7, 2004 9:41am
|
M
M?daille Comm?morative Fran?aise 1914-1918 - Awarded to all members of the French Armed Forces who saw service between 2 August 1914 and 11 November 1918. Instituted on 23 June 1920, it could also be conferred on members of the Merchant Navy, medical personnel, local authorities, police of fire brigades of bombed cities etc. Before the Cross for Volunteer Combatants was instituted, a bar "Engag? Volontaire" could be worn on the ribbon.
|
|
tdeane
Sat February 12, 2005 12:03pm
Rating: 10
|
Dealing With Locals
We have many "locals" that come by. Some seek medical help, others food...and then there was this guy. He wanted to sell us fruits and veggies.
|
|
David
Mon July 25, 2005 11:36am
|
North Africa American Cem
The World War II North Africa American Cemetery and Memorial is located in close proximity to the site of the ancient city of Carthage, Tunisia which was destroyed by the Romans in 146 B.C. and lies over part of the site of Roman Carthage. It is near the present town of Carthage and ten miles from Tunis and five miles from the airport. The La Marsa Railroad runs from the center of Tunis to the Amilcar Station, a five minute walk to the cemetery. Taxicabs are available in Tunis and at the airport. There are good hotel accommodations in Tunis as well as in the vicinity of the cemetery at Carthage, Amilcar and Gammarth.
At this cemetery, twenty-seven acres in extent, rest 2,841 American military Dead. Their headstones are set in straight lines and subdivided into nine rectangular plots by wide paths with decorative pools at their intersections. Along the southeast edge of the burial area is a long Wall of the Missing with its sculptured figures and bordering tree lined terrace leading to the memorial. On this wall are engraved the names of 3,724 American Missing who gave their lives in the service of their country in military activities ranging from North Africa to the Persian Gulf during World War II.
The chapel and the memorial court, which contains large maps in mosaic and ceramic depicting the operations and supply activities of American Armed Forces across Africa to the Persian Gulf, were designed to harmonize with the local architecture. The chapel interior is decorated with polished marble, flags and sculpture.
The cemetery is open daily to the public from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm except December 25 and January 1. It is open on host country holidays. When the cemetery is open to the public, a staff member is on duty in the Visitors? Building to answer questions and escort relatives to grave and memorial sites.
|
|
David
Mon July 25, 2005 12:16pm
|
Saipan American Memorial
The World War II Saipan American Memorial is located near the beach overlooking Tanapag Harbor on the Island of Saipan, Commonwealth of the Mariana Islands. It is a part of the American Memorial Park commemorating the Americans and Chamorras who died during the liberation of the Mariana Islands during World War II. Specifically, the memorial honors the 24,000 American Marines and Soldiers who died recapturing the islands of Saipan, Tinian and Guam during the period June 15, 1944 to August 11, 1944.
The memorial consists of a twelve-foot rectangular obelisk of rose granite in a landscaped area of local flora and a twenty-foot tower to the north enclosing a carillon. Inscribed on the monument is the following:
THIS MEMORIAL HAS BEEN ERECTED BY
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
IN HUMBLE TRIBUTE TO ITS SONS
WHO PAID THE ULTIMATE SACRIFICE
FOR THE LIBERATION OF THE MARIANAS.
1941-1945
|
|
David
Tue August 9, 2005 12:14pm
|
USS Ranger CV 4 4 Jun 193
USS Ranger CV 4 4 Jun 1934 18 Oct 1946
Aerial, port bow, aircraft on deck. April 8, 1938.
displacement: 14,500 tons
length: 769 feet
beam: 81 feet 8 inches [extreme width, flight deck: 86 feet]
draft: 19 feet 8 inches
speed: 29? knots
complement: 1,788 crew
armament: 8 five-inch guns
class: Ranger
The sixth Ranger (CV 4), the first ship of the Navy to be designed and built from the keel up as an aircraft carrier was laid down 26 September 1931 by Newport News Shipbuilding & Drydock Co., Newport News, Va.; launched 25 February 1933, sponsored by Mrs. Herbert Hoover; and commissioned at the Norfolk Navy Yard 4 June 1934, Capt. Arthur L. Bristol in command.
Ranger conducted her first air operations off Cape Henry 6 August 1934 and departed Norfolk the 17th for a shakedown training cruise that took her to Rio de Janeiro, Buenos Aires, and Montevideo. She returned to Norfolk 4 October for operations off the Virginia Capes until 28 March 1935, when she sailed for the Pacific. Transiting the Panama Canal on 7 April, she arrived San Diego on the 15th. For nearly four years she participated in fleet problems reaching to Hawaii, and in western seaboard operations that took her as far south as Callao, Peru, and as far north as Seattle, Wash. On 4 January 1939, she departed San Diego for winter fleet operations in the Caribbean out of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. She then steamed north to Norfolk, Va., arriving 18 April.
Ranger cruised along the eastern seaboard out of Norfolk and into the Caribbean Sea. In the fall of 1939, she commenced Neutrality Patrol operations, operating out of Bermuda along the trade routes of the middle Atlantic and up the eastern seaboard up to Argentia, Newfoundland. She was returning to Norfolk from an ocean patrol extending to Port-of-Spain, Trinidad, when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. Arriving Norfolk 8 December, she sailed on the 21st for patrol in the South Atlantic. She then entered the Norfolk Navy Yard for repairs 22 March 1942.
Ranger served as flagship of Rear Adm. A. B. Cook, Commander, Carriers, Atlantic Fleet, until 6 April 1942, when he was relieved by Rear Adm. Ernest D. McWhorter, who also broke his flag in Ranger.
Steaming to Quonset Point, R.I., Ranger loaded 68 Army P-40 planes and men of the Army's 33d Pursuit Squadron, put to sea 22 April, and launched the Army squadron 10 May to land at Accra, on the Gold Coast of Africa. She returned to Quonset Point 28 May 1942, made a patrol to Argentia, then stood out of Newport 1 July with 72 Army P-40 pursuit planes, which she launched off the coast of Africa for Accra the 19th. After calling at Trinidad, she returned to Norfolk for local battle practice until 1 October, then based her training at Bermuda in company with four escort aircraft carriers that had been newly converted from tankers to meet the need for naval air power in the Atlantic.
The only large carrier in the Atlantic Fleet, Ranger led the task force comprising herself and four Sangamon-class escort carriers that provided air superiority during the amphibious invasion of German dominated French Morocco which commenced the morning of 8 November 1942.
It was still dark at 0615 that day, when Ranger, stationed 30 miles northwest of Casablanca, began launching her aircraft to support the landings made at three points on the Atlantic coast of North Africa. Nine of her Wildcats attacked the Rabat and Rabat-Sale airdromes, headquarters of the French air forces in Morocco. Without loss to themselves, they destroyed seven planes on one field, and 14 bombers on the other. Another flight destroyed seven planes on the Port Lyautey field. Some of Ranger's planes strafed four French destroyers in Casablanca Harbor while others strafed and bombed nearby batteries. The carrier launched 496 combat sorties in the three-day operation. Her attack aircraft scored two direct bomb hits on the French destroyer leader Albatros, completely wrecking her forward half and causing 300 casualties. They also attacked French cruiser Primaugut as she sortied from Casablanca Harbor, dropped depth charges within lethal distance of two submarines, and knocked out coastal defense and anti-aircraft batteries. They destroyed more than 70 enemy planes on the ground and shot down 15 in aerial combat. But 16 planes from Ranger were lost or damaged beyond repair. It was estimated that 21 light enemy tanks were immobilized and some 86 military vehicles destroyed ? most of them troop-carrying trucks.
Casablanca capitulated to the American invaders 11 November 1942 and Ranger departed the Moroccan coast 12 November, returning to Norfolk, Va., on the 23d.
Following training in Chesapeake Bay, the carrier underwent overhaul in the Norfolk Navy Yard from 16 December 1942 to 7 February 1943. She next transported 75 P-40-L Army pursuit planes to Africa, arriving Casablanca on 23 February; then patrolled and trained pilots along the New England coast steaming as far north as Halifax, Nova Scotia. Departing Halifax 11 August, she joined the British Home Fleet at Scapa Flow, Scotland, 19 August, and patrolled the approaches to the British Isles.
Ranger departed Scapa Flow with the Home Fleet 2 October to attack German shipping in Norwegian waters. The objective of the force was the Norwegian port of Bod?. The task force reached launch position off Vestfjord before dawn 4 October completely undetected. At 0618, Ranger launched 20 Dauntless dive bombers and an escort of eight Wildcat fighters. One division of dive bombers attacked the 8,000-ton freighter LaPlata, while the rest continued north to attack a small German convoy. They severely damaged a 10,000-ton tanker and a smaller troop transport. They also sank two of four small German merchantmen in the Bod? roadstead.
A second Ranger attack group of 10 Avengers and six Wildcats destroyed a German freighter and a small coaster and bombed yet another troop-laden transport. Three Ranger planes were lost to antiaircraft fire. On the afternoon of 4 October, Ranger was finally located by three German aircraft, but her combat air patrol shot down two of the enemy planes and chased off the third.
Ranger returned to Scapa Flow 6 October 1943. She patrolled with the British Second Battle Squadron in waters reaching to Iceland, and then departed Hvalfjord on 26 November, arriving Boston 4 December. On 3 January 1944, she became a training carrier out of Quonset Point, R.I. This duty was interrupted 20 April when she arrived at Staten Island, N.Y., to load 76 P-38 fighter planes together with Army, Navy, and French Naval personnel for transport to Casablanca. Sailing 24 April, she arrived Casablanca 4 May. There she onloaded Army aircraft destined for stateside repairs and embarked military passengers for the return to New York.
Touching at New York 16 May, Ranger then entered the Norfolk Navy Yard to have her flight deck strengthened and for installation of a new type catapult, radar, and associated gear that provided her with a capacity for night fighter interceptor training. On 11 July 1944 she departed Norfolk transited the Panama Canal 5 days later, and embarked several hundred Army passengers at Balboa for transportation to San Diego, arriving there 25 July.
After embarking the men and aircraft of Night Fighting Squadron 102 and nearly a thousand Marines, she sailed for Hawaiian waters 28 July, reaching Pearl Harbor 3 August. During the next 3 months she conducted night carrier training operations out of Pearl Harbor.
Ranger departed Pearl Harbor 18 October to train pilots for combat duty. Operating out of San Diego under Commander, Fleet Air, Alameda, she continued training air groups and squadrons along the California coast throughout the remainder of the war.
Departing San Diego 30 September 1945, she embarked civilian and military passengers at Balboa the Canal Zone, and then steamed for New Orleans, arriving 18 October. Following Navy Day celebrations there, she sailed 30 October for brief operations at Pensacola. After calling at Norfolk, she entered the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard 18 November for overhaul. She remained on the eastern seaboard until decommissioned at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard 18 October 1946. Struck from the Navy list 29 October 1946, she was sold for scrap to Sun Shipbuilding & Drydock Co., Chester, Pa., 28 January 1947.
Ranger received two battle stars for World War II service.
|
|
David
Tue August 30, 2005 12:50pm
|
Federalist Papers, No. 10
Federalist Papers, No. 10 & No. 51 (1787-1788)
The Federalist Papers, were a series of 85 essays written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison between October 1787 and May 1788. The essays were published anonymously, under the pen name "Publius," primarily in two New York state newspapers of the time: The New York Packet and The Independent Journal.
They were written to urge citizens of New York to support ratification of the proposed United States Constitution. Significantly, the essays explain particular provisions of the Constitution in detail. It is for this reason, and because Hamilton and Madison were members of the Constitutional Convention, that the Federalist Papers are often used today to help understand the intentions of those drafting the Constitution.
A bound edition of the essays, with revisions and corrections by Hamilton, was published in 1788 by printers J. and A. McLean. A later edition, published by printer Jacob Gideon in 1818, with revisions and corrections by Madison, was the first to identify each essay by its author's name. Because of the essays? publishing history, the assignment of authorship, numbering, and exact wording may vary with different editions of The Federalist.
The essays featured here are Federalist No. 10 and Federalist No. 51. The former, written by James Madison, refuted the belief that it was impossible to extend a republican government over a large territory. It also discussed special interest groups. The later emphasized the importance of checks and balances within a government.
Transcript of Federalist Papers, No. 10 & No. 51 (1787-1788)
The Federalist Paper No. 10
The Same Subject Continued: The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection
The Federalist No. X
To the People of the State of New York:
AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it. The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations. The valuable improvements made by the American constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side, as was wished and expected. Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence, of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true. It will be found, indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the distresses under which we labor have been erroneously charged on the operation of our governments; but it will be found, at the same time, that other causes will not alone account for many of our heaviest misfortunes; and, particularly, for that prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements, and alarm for private rights, which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other. These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations.
By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.
There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.
There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.
It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.
The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.
The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.
No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens? And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail. Shall domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufactures? are questions which would be differently decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes, and probably by neither with a sole regard to justice and the public good. The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets.
It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.
The inference to which we are brought is, that the CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS.
If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.
By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.
From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.
The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.
The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations:
In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.
In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.
It must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean, on both sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie. By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects. The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures.
The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.
Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic,--is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.
The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.
In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists.
PUBLIUS.
The Federalist Paper No. 51
The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments
The Federalist No. 51
To the People of the State of New York:
TO WHAT expedient, then, shall we finally resort, for maintaining in practice the necessary partition of power among the several departments, as laid down in the Constitution? The only answer that can be given is, that as all these exterior provisions are found to be inadequate, the defect must be supplied, by so contriving the interior structure of the government as that its several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places. Without presuming to undertake a full development of this important idea, I will hazard a few general observations, which may perhaps place it in a clearer light, and enable us to form a more correct judgment of the principles and structure of the government planned by the convention.
In order to lay a due foundation for that separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government, which to a certain extent is admitted on all hands to be essential to the preservation of liberty, it is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others. Were this principle rigorously adhered to, it would require that all the appointments for the supreme executive, legislative, and judiciary magistracies should be drawn from the same fountain of authority, the people, through channels having no communication whatever with one another. Perhaps such a plan of constructing the several departments would be less difficult in practice than it may in contemplation appear. Some difficulties, however, and some additional expense would attend the execution of it. Some deviations, therefore, from the principle must be admitted. In the constitution of the judiciary department in particular, it might be inexpedient to insist rigorously on the principle: first, because peculiar qualifications being essential in the members, the primary consideration ought to be to select that mode of choice which best secures these qualifications; secondly, because the permanent tenure by which the appointments are held in that department, must soon destroy all sense of dependence on the authority conferring them.
It is equally evident, that the members of each department should be as little dependent as possible on those of the others, for the emoluments annexed to their offices. Were the executive magistrate, or the judges, not independent of the legislature in this particular, their independence in every other would be merely nominal. But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.
A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions. This policy of supplying, by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives, might be traced through the whole system of human affairs, private as well as public. We see it particularly displayed in all the subordinate distributions of power, where the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other that the private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights. These inventions of prudence cannot be less requisite in the distribution of the supreme powers of the State. But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit. It may even be necessary to guard against dangerous encroachments by still further precautions. As the weight of the legislative authority requires that it should be thus divided, the weakness of the executive may require, on the other hand, that it should be fortified.
An absolute negative on the legislature appears, at first view, to be the natural defense with which the executive magistrate should be armed. But perhaps it would be neither altogether safe nor alone sufficient. On ordinary occasions it might not be exerted with the requisite firmness, and on extraordinary occasions it might be perfidiously abused. May not this defect of an absolute negative be supplied by some qualified connection between this weaker department and the weaker branch of the stronger department, by which the latter may be led to support the constitutional rights of the former, without being too much detached from the rights of its own department? If the principles on which these observations are founded be just, as I persuade myself they are, and they be applied as a criterion to the several State constitutions, and to the federal Constitution it will be found that if the latter does not perfectly correspond with them, the former are infinitely less able to bear such a test.
There are, moreover, two considerations particularly applicable to the federal system of America, which place that system in a very interesting point of view. First. In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself. Second. It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.
There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable. The first method prevails in all governments possessing an hereditary or self-appointed authority. This, at best, is but a precarious security; because a power independent of the society may as well espouse the unjust views of the major, as the rightful interests of the minor party, and may possibly be turned against both parties. The second method will be exemplified in the federal republic of the United States. Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority.
In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of interests and sects; and this may be presumed to depend on the extent of country and number of people comprehended under the same government. This view of the subject must particularly recommend a proper federal system to all the sincere and considerate friends of republican government, since it shows that in exact proportion as the territory of the Union may be formed into more circumscribed Confederacies, or States oppressive combinations of a majority will be facilitated: the best security, under the republican forms, for the rights of every class of citizens, will be diminished: and consequently the stability and independence of some member of the government, the only other security, must be proportionately increased. Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradnally induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful.
It can be little doubted that if the State of Rhode Island was separated from the Confederacy and left to itself, the insecurity of rights under the popular form of government within such narrow limits would be displayed by such reiterated oppressions of factious majorities that some power altogether independent of the people would soon be called for by the voice of the very factions whose misrule had proved the necessity of it. In the extended republic of the United States, and among the great variety of interests, parties, and sects which it embraces, a coalition of a majority of the whole society could seldom take place on any other principles than those of justice and the general good; whilst there being thus less danger to a minor from the will of a major party, there must be less pretext, also, to provide for the security of the former, by introducing into the government a will not dependent on the latter, or, in other words, a will independent of the society itself. It is no less certain than it is important, notwithstanding the contrary opinions which have been entertained, that the larger the society, provided it lie within a practical sphere, the more duly capable it will be of self-government. And happily for the REPUBLICAN CAUSE, the practicable sphere may be carried to a very great extent, by a judicious modification and mixture of the FEDERAL PRINCIPLE.
PUBLIUS.
|
|
frisco-kid
Mon December 5, 2005 11:05am
|
100_0025
Dalat was probably my favorite place of the whole trip. I think some of it was the weather. In the low 50's-mid 60's, it was a refreshing break from the humidity and heat of Saigon and the Mekong, and the wind and heat of the beaches. Pretty much light jacket/sweatshirt weather, it was alot like home now.
It has a whole different atmosphere from other cities in Vietnam. The pace is a little slower; the shop keepers aren't as aggressive; no street beggars; the orphan kids selling post cards take no for an answer the first time; as a westerner walking through it's streets, you don't turn too many heads or cause traffic jams. You don't feel stared at all the time. A pretty laid back place. It has a flourishing artist community with alot of picture galleries and many local crafts for sale. You can enjoy a good cheeseburger and beer at a sidewalk cafe and watch the people meander by without being disturbed.
Being a mountain community was a plus for me. While I enjoy a day or two at the beach, I've always enjoyed the mountains more. Lived in higher elevations most of my adult life. If I were to live in Nam, Dalat would be where I lived.
The girl in the picture is making a portrait, taken from the photo, entirely by hand embroidering with silk thread. We visited the factory and gallery of this famous local handicraft. Some of the pieces of art were breath-taking, many of them taking close to a year to complete.
|
|
frisco-kid
Tue December 13, 2005 6:13pm
|
102_0212
After our walk on the beach we returned to the outdoor cafe area to pay our bill and leave. Before we could do so, the waiter brought us 2 beers and told us it was from the other party that was near by. They then asked us to join them. They were a group of school teachers that had been partying since before we got there. They all spoke a little bit of english, but some better than others. They were all eager to try it out on us. I could see that they weren't ever going to let my beer glass become empty, so I was able to convince them that we had to go. It could have turned into hours.
This is one of my favorite things to do when traveling in a foreign country; to get up close and personal with the locals. Other foreign travelers, also. You find out how much we're all pretty much alike, while getting an education about how unique we all are, also. It was a good time.
|
|
frisco-kid
Tue December 13, 2005 6:34pm
|
102_0204
We stopped at a fishing village at the NW end of the island for some cold drinks at a local cafe. That's Cambodia across the water. Phu Quoc Island is actually closer to Cambodia than to Vietnam. I guess they have fought over it several times over the centuries. As close to Cambodia as it is, Cambodians can't enter the country via Phu Quoc. It's not a port of entry for anyone.
|
|
frisco-kid
Tue December 20, 2005 9:50pm
|
|
frisco-kid
Tue December 20, 2005 9:53pm
|
101_0157
We sample some of the local fruit.
|
|
frisco-kid
Tue December 20, 2005 11:06pm
|
101_0115
A river tour boat had been arranged to carry just us and our guide from Saigon. A young lady named Tinh was our local guide. The girl in the back with the baby is the wife of the boat owner-driver. This was all set up for us from Saigon.
|
|
frisco-kid
Wed December 21, 2005 11:02pm
|
100_0010
After lunch at the hotel [on the airline], we booked a short tour from the hotel. The first place they took us was to the local fish market. This was the first fish we saw. Okay,....it's not real  .
|
|
|
The Patriot Files Forums
