The New England Blue Star

All articles by Elihu Enoch Raines unless otherwise stated.

FROM THE DESK OF THE EDITOR:

‘A recent dispute has emerged in the House of Representatives whether the Speaker shall control the business of the House or a House Majority Leader – essentially a position created of the recent factionalization of politics – shall control said business. It is the opinion of this paper that, under no circumstances, should the dreaded split between ‘Federalists’ and ‘Republicans’ be codified in the law of the land.

The root of the dispute, if a recent letter from Deputy Speaker Battle Hughes is to be trusted, is conflict over the most recent list of bills presented for debate. While the bills were good and fine, conducive to the well being of the country, House Majority Leader Clay seems to have a problem with the fact that he did not hand-select these bills. This attitude is particularly concerning to this paper, as it displays an arrogance asserting that what the House Majority Leader should be all-powerful, controlling the presiding officer of the House.

I would like to remind the readers of this paper that this ‘House Majority Leader’ office is not in the Constitution, while the Speaker is. Should the whims of one man have more authority in this country than the Constitution that we have so recently established? This paper and her editor think not.’

ABUSES OF THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE IN FRANCE:

‘As news arrives from across the Atlantic, it is become increasingly clear that the French monarchy, once a friend of republican efforts in the United States of America, cares little for the rights of man and only what is politically expedient. Just recently we have received word that the monarch, rather than listen to the legitimate complaints of his citizens, has locked them out – quite literally – of the political process.

Let us be clear: The cause of French unrest is the same as our own. High taxes, poor government verging on tyranny and an express desire on the part of the King to keep political power contained in his own hands. While it is important that the United States not get involved in the affair in order to maintain positive trade relations, our hearts should be aligned with those of the French populace.’

THE LIMITS AND POSSIBILITIES OF FEDERALISM, by Gordon Battle Hughes

Since before the birth of our Republic there has been a debate over the authority of the constituent parts and the totality of the parts. While we can talk of politics or necessity, the fact of the matter is that there is a logical limit to the power of the federal government and a logical limit to the power of the states.

As Thomas Paine rightly noted in his book on Common Sense, a smaller entity can never truly govern a larger one. In all matters, the larger entity shall dictate its own future and the smaller one shall, at best, be regulated to an advisory role. This has a double role in the question of federal authority.

Federal power is vested in a federal government, which at best equates to the city of New York, and even that would be a tenuous claim. It will be impossible for the federal government to effectively coerce and tyrannize the nation as some Republicans – and even some Federalists, sad to say – seem to believe. Any kind of act would have to be done with the consent of the states. Likewise, this nature of smaller entities being incapable of governing larger ones tells us that no single state – no matter how influential, no matter how powerful – will ever have total control over the Union as a whole.

Thus, we need to move beyond the questions of control and tyranny and domination and instead look at the questions that matter to the citizens of our new nation: trade, stability, tranquility, freedom of conscience and the pursuit of happiness.’

ON THE SEMINOLE MENACE, by Col. William Charles Bathurst

‘Recent events in Florida and Georgia have made it abundantly clear that no state by itself can withstand the threat of a unified force of savages dedicated to the destruction of our Republic and our way of life. Those of you who, like myself, have fought against Little Turtle and Pontiac know that even a union of states, sometimes backed with imperial powers, can struggle to suppress their violent habits.

We need now, more than ever, a unified policy against the Seminole menace and a federal army with enough strength to cleanse the Georgia-Florida border of their infestation. Just as the destruction of a forest allows for the growing of crops and grains, the destruction of the Seminoles would allow for the sowing of better men.’

A NEW AGREEMENT OF THE PEOPLE: A MODIFICATION OF THE DEMANDS AND IDEOLOGY OF THE LEVELER MOVEMENT FOR THE NEW AMERICAN REPUBLIC, by Battle Hughes

Although our new nation is young, the fact is that a great many men have shed their blood for its creation and for the rights now enjoyed by a select few. Our cause was liberty, freedom and basic human equality, but the system laid forth in our constitution and the constitution of our respective states does not reflect that cause.

Our revolution, our glorious cause for the betterment of the human condition, was only partially institutionalized in our new government. Those freedoms which benefited the wealthy are clearly seen, but those that benefited only the laborer and the worker are absent. While this is our nation won in blood, it is the government of only a few.

To that end, I propose the following changes in our laws and mindsets:

1. That all white men, regardless of income or property holdings, be given the right to participate in federal elections and be recognized as full citizens of the United States of America.

2. That the disparate states work to extend that same right to their own citizens.

3. That all poll taxes be ended immediately, through whatever method of reform and elimination should be deemed legal.

4. That the individual citizen shall have the authority to effect federal law through popular referendum, in methods initiated by the people as opposed through representative bodies.

5. That popular referendums be initiated by those states which do not currently have them.

6. That the idea of distinction between civilian and military be extended to represent a distinction between citizen and government, and that the citizen should express total control over the government.

7. That social and economic hierarchy be permanently distinguished from political and legal hierarchy, and that no individual whatever their wealth, status, respectability or office should ever be viewed as greater or less than any other, and that all institutions of power and coercion be stripped from the land.

To this great cause I pledge my life, my fortune and my respectability. By instituting these ideas we can have a second Revolution – bloodless, without malice towards those who now limit our freedoms – and bring about a nation not just conceived in liberty, but born and bred in liberty.

NEW HAMPSHIRE MILITIA RAIDS JAY RESIDENCE

After word of the traitorous activities of Samuel Jay leaked out, local law enforcement called on the New Hampshire Militia to provide support during the investigation of the Jay homestead in case Jay or his supporters remained on the premises and were armed. The unit, under the command of Colonel Bathurst, became agitated after the failure of law enforcement officials to find any evidence hidden in the house.

Bathurst, leading a handful of men, barged past the authorities and entered the residence, where they began tearing down curtains, piling up books and papers of dubious value to the investigation and even peeling back the floor boards. Bathurst, a veteran of the Revolution, promised that if he returned to the residence it would be with a torch in hand in a letter sent to the Blue Star.

 The letter also included a strong suggestion on the part of Bathurst that either the respective states or the federal government should take the extended Jay family into custody for questioning, as he believes that they know the depth and breadth of the fiendish plot against the young republic. 

(OOC: Posted with approval of Bruce, Bluto)

THE BATTLE OF SUWANNEE VILLAGE, by E. E. Raines

The first American victory in the Seminole War occurred recently as the New England militia under Colonel William Charles Bathurst entered western Georgia and displaced the natives living in the Suwannee region who have risen up in violent insurrection. Bathurst, a veteran of the British military who joined the Continental Army during the Revolution, reported that the Suwannee suffered over a thousand casualties with the New England militia taking two dead and five wounded, mostly due to accidents.
It is the hope of this paper that Colonel Bathurst’s victory will be the first of many, and that this will mark the point where the violent Seminoles and their allies are driven out of Georgia. Colonel Bathurst, in a letter to this paper, urged us not to read too much into his victory, stating that it was more of a removal operation than a pitched battle. However, he went on to state that he remained committed to the expulsion of the Seminoles and urged voters back home to support efforts to expand a national military that would be more qualified to address such threats in the future.

NATIONAL DEMOCRACY PARTY FOUNDED, by E. E. Raines

Much to the surprise of many political observers, the Federalist Party seems to have collapsed due to internal divisions and dissatisfaction with party leadership as well as some slight ideological differences. The leaders of the split – primarily New England congressmen and a number of New England industrialists joined by some independent and Republican politicians – have also expressed a desire to continue supporting the Washington administration.
A number of defectors to the movement are quite influential, and we shall provide a short profile of some of these men:
Timothy Pickering: Adjutant General during the Revolution, Pickering is credited with preventing the British from advancing beyond West Point.
Francis Dana: Ambassador to Russia during the Revolution, presently sitting on the Massachusetts Supreme Court.
Theophilus Parsons: A legal scholar whose Conciliatory Resolutions did much to win over the famous Samuel Adams to the federal Constitution, and who helped draft the Massachusetts Constitution.
George Clymer: One of the five men who signed both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
Elbridge Gerry: Formerly a Republican, Gerry participated in the Constitutional Convention.

THE DEMOCRACY PRIMER, by G. Battle Hughes

With the formation of the National Democracy Party, it is important to explain the philosophical underpinnings of the idea of democracy for the consumption of those less versed in its nuances and history. As democracy argues that
Democracy, it is important to state, is not the same thing as mob rule. In fact, democratic Athens had far more political stability and order than Republican Rome, and never entered into a state of tyranny through domestic machinations in the way that Rome did. Likewise, democracy is not antithetical to the idea of republicanism – in fact, it could be argued that democracy is the true virtue of republicanism and the idea that will allow our republic to reach its full potential.
At this time, I would like to hearken back to the immortal words of Mr. Paine, explaining why the Colonies needed to be freed from British rule: “Small islands not capable of protecting themselves, are the proper objects for kingdoms to take under their care; but there is something very absurd, in supposing a continent to be perpetually governed by an island. In no instance hath nature made the satellite larger than its primary planet, and as England and America, with respect to each other, reverses the common order of nature, it is evident they belong to different systems; England to Europe, America to itself.”
This idea is central to the idea of democracy, as well. It is not possible that a small group of people – wealthy aristocrats – can effectively govern a great mass of humanity – the laborers, the soldiers and the artisans. Any such system is doomed to failure because it, by its very state of being, runs counter to the rules of sensible thought.
A man may be a successful trader, but his ship does not run without a crew.
A man may be a great farmer, but his plantation is not handled by his hands alone.
A man may be a general for the ages, but he is not his army.
In this same sense, a man may be a great orator or statesman but he is nothing without his populace, and it is the populace that must hold him in confidence for him to be an effective leader.
---
Was it not the rallying cry of our revolution that a man without political representation can not be made to pay taxes? Yet here we are fourteen years later and our own government, on this continent, ruling in our name and our name alone, has a great mass of citizens that pay taxes to various state entities yet does not grant them political representation. The hypocrisy of this stance is so clear, so apparent, that continuing it for long will make us the laughingstock of men and nations.
By the standards that we ourselves have set, the common men of this nation would be fully just to rise up and overthrow our government because of their lack of representation. To preserve the peace of our nation and our social fabric, we should show a willingness to dispense justice where George III was not – give these men their rights, respect their autonomy and respect the common liberties that all men share in common by right of birth.
---
These men now denied political representation are those most deserving of it, for many of them bled and suffered for our nation. I fought in our revolution, and I served as an officer over men from common background. I can tell you that I did not bleed or suffer or struggle any more than they did – if any group men earned our independence, it was the American working man, strong in heart and body and him that we owe our independence too.
Right now, thousands of common men have left New England for the south in order to help them fight native invaders. This army does not consist solely of aristocrats and merchants, but is in the vast majority an army of the common man. If we ask them to fight for the safety and interests of landed aristocrats, we should at least have the basic human dignity to give them the same kinds of political representation.
---
A man who tells you that the common man can not guide our nation is a fool or a force of malevolence, either ignorant of his own status or so wrapped up in his own interests that he can not tolerate a perceived threat to his special status. I know that I am no wiser than any other man, and no other man wiser than I; I have land, yes, but the landless man looks to his interests and the interests of his family as well as I. Any man who claims special knowledge of the affairs of a nation-state on the grounds that he has land is an ignorant man and should not be trusted to lead.
I recognize my limitations. If I need boots, I will turn to a bootmaker – so to does the common man.
If I need health, I will turn to a doctor – so to does the common man.
If I need food, I will turn to the farmer – so to does the common man.
If I need work, I will turn to the laborer – so to does the common man.
If I need information, I will turn to the paper – so to does the common man.
It is because of this realization that I claim no special knowledge of this world, no great enlightenment that makes me capable of leading a state and condemns my fellow man to political repression.
The landed aristocrat will tell you that he is qualified to lead this nation because he owns land and makes money. I ask you who will defend his land and his money? Will it be the aristocrats himself or will it be the men who labor in their fields, build their mansions, man their ships and make their goods? We all know this answer.
---
I do not seek – and the National Democracy Party – does not seek the overthrow of our new republic. I just seek the fulfillment of our republic. Republic, from res publica – res meaning a solid, real thing and publica meaning that it pertains to the well-being of the public. If our state seeks to deal with the well being of the public in a solid, real manner, it must bring the public to the table and allow them not just a voice, but a vote.

ANOTHER LETTER, Col. William Bathurst

In the tradition established in our last issue, where we allowed Colonel Bathurst to publish a response to the Southern Journal Constitution, we have decided to publish yet another letter from the Colonel, this time in response to Jean Surratt’s response.
“The primary reason that I do not see my attack on the Suwannee Village as a massacre is that I did not order my unit to massacre civilians. I ordered my men to remove a village from the map by displacing the population and then burning down the structures. There was some resistance from the people there, yes, but in the same way that there has been resistance in a number of struggles.
My job is to go into Georgia – a state that has failed to protect itself – and make sure that it is safe from future Indian incursion. The only way that we are going to make a state safe is to move the Indians elsewhere. We can move them – in events like those that happened at Suwannee Village, where casualties are unfortunate but unexpected – or exterminate them. Those are our options – if the Southern Journal Constitution will not allow us to relocate them, they are essentially mandating that we exterminate them.
I have no love for the Indians – when I first came to the North American continent it was to fight Indians, and they surrounded our fort. I, like many of my fellow defenders, became riddled with smallpox and was permanently disfigured - I blame the Indians for that, but I do not wish to exterminate them. I want to move them, with minimal casualties, and allow the people of Georgia to live in peace.
I ask the Southern Journal Constitution to stop undermining our efforts in Georgia to secure that state from invasion – I recognize their right to publish what they wish, but when they criticize their fellow citizens, many of them veterans of the Continental Army, for doing the kind of action that was critical to pacifying the other regions of this nation, they do nothing but aid the Indians in their quest to collect more white scalps.”

HUGHES DECLINES TO RUN FOR SPEAKER, by E. E. Raines

G. Battle Hughes, the Speaker Pro Tempore who has handled a majority of the House business this Congress due to the bad health of Speaker Muhlenberg, has declined to continue on in the position or pursue the Speakership itself. While Hughes was a controversial figure – famously, Representative Jackson Clay once attempted to remove him during a personal dispute – and the make-up of the coming Congress is still in dispute, he would have been a strong candidate from his own National Democracy Party had he made an attempt to hold office.
Our editor has contacted Representative Hughes to inquire as to why his career has taken this direction, and he responded with a short statement: ‘I am thankful to have had this opportunity, but at heart I love to debate and argue the great questions of our day and I do not have the personal constitution to be a dispassionate observer, which is what the Speaker should be.’
During his tenure, Hughes presided over legislation that reformed the process of debt incarceration (which he co-authored with Representative Lee of Vermont), sought neutrality in the French Revolution and established numerous branches of the armed forces.
When asked if he was planning on pursuing an official position within the National Democracy Party, which he helped organize and has been a forceful advocate for, Hughes responded: ‘I have helped build that party and I plan to contribute to its intellectual development as a national ideology, but for it to have organic roots it must be led by other men. Therefore, I totally support Chairman Hannover and I have no desire to be anything more than a Representative from the state of New Hampshire.’