Who was the Greatest Founding Father?

[Galileo Galilei]

Who was the Greatest Founding Father?

1. James Madison

2. Thomas Jefferson

3. George Washington

4. Other

UPDATE!

Guides to the Founding Fathers:

Founding Fathers of the United States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States

Welcome to the Founding Fathers home page
http://www.foundingfathers.info/

America's Founding Fathers
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_founding_fathers.html

Founding Fathers of the United States of America
http://americanrevwar.homestead.com/files/FATHERS.HTM

Biographies of America's Founding Fathers
http://colonialhall.com/

FoundingFathers.com
http://www.foundingfathers.com/

[Truth Warrior]

2.

[Kotin]

Jefferson FTW...

[rational thinker]

Thomas Mutherfucking Jefferson.

[Acala]

Jefferson was not a great President and not a great governor. But he was an unwavering, eloquent, and largely selfless advocate for the pure cause of human liberty. Not to mention his almost inumerable other talents.

Tom Paine and Sam Adams were pretty good too. And I am sure there are some lesser-knows or unknowns who were the greatest of all.

[rational thinker]

Washington wasn't bad, either. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbRom1Rz8OA)

[rational thinker]

Jefferson was not a great President and not a great governor. But he was an unwavering, eloquent, and largely selfless advocate for the pure cause of human liberty. Not to mention his almost inumerable other talents.

Watch your mouth on this forum.

[JoshLowry]

I have to go with Madison because I'm related to him. :)

(not by blood though)

[ClayTrainor]

Watch your mouth on this forum.

i don't think many will disagree with him.

The consensus on this forum, as far as i can tell is that Jefferson, was a great advocate of liberty but a hypocritical president in many respects.

:cool:

[ClayTrainor]

I vote for Ben Franklin, because his quotes impact me the hardest when i read them.

He was truly a very wise man.

[Crash Martinez]

3 great Presbyterians missing from this list.

Benjamin Rush
John Witherspoon
William Paterson

[Kevin Tuma]

Who was the Greatest Founding Father?

1. James Madison

2. Thomas Jefferson

3. George Washington

4. Other

Ben Franklin.

-He was a self-made rich man (instead of an aristocrat).

-He was a complete renaissance man...inventor, writer, entrepreneur, diplomat.

-He was a slave abolitionist (instead of a slave owner).

-He never ought the office of the presidency.

[Galileo Galilei]

UPDATE!

Guides to the Founding Fathers:

Founding Fathers of the United States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States

Welcome to the Founding Fathers home page
http://www.foundingfathers.info/

America's Founding Fathers
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_founding_fathers.html

Founding Fathers of the United States of America
http://americanrevwar.homestead.com/files/FATHERS.HTM

Biographies of America's Founding Fathers
http://colonialhall.com/

FoundingFathers.com
http://www.foundingfathers.com/

[Kludge]

Jefferson was alright... I picked John Rutledge only because I like his brother, Edward.

(Picking Edward Rutledge was a joke, for the record)

[Scofield]

Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry.

They both were very pro-Liberty.

[Galileo Galilei]

3 great Presbyterians missing from this list.

Benjamin Rush
John Witherspoon
William Paterson

I could only pick 20.

Everyone who signed both the Declaration of Independence or Constitution made it automatically.

I agree that Rush is very important because he signed the Declaration and remained active for many years afterward into the 1810s. Paterson was a fairly key player at the Constitutional convention, and proposed the Paterson Plan.

I don't know much about Witherspoon except that he signed the Declaration.

[Galileo Galilei]

I have to go with Madison because I'm related to him. :)

(not by blood though)

So is Obama. Pretty scary, eh?

[Galileo Galilei]

Jefferson was alright... I picked John Rutledge only because I like his brother, Edward.

Rutledge was a key player at the Constitutional Convention. Right up near the top, along with Madison, G. Morris, Wilson, and Mason.

I think his brother signed the Declaration of Independence.

[SovereignMN]

Patrick Henry gets my vote.

[rational thinker]

Where's Obama?

[Young Paleocon]

Patrick Henry and Jefferson. Without Henry, Clinton, and the anti-federalists we may not have had a Bill of Rights. Not that we really use it anymore, but it's the thought that counts.

[Unspun]

Patrick Henry and Jefferson. Without Henry, Clinton, and the anti-federalists we may not have had a Bill of Rights. Not that we really use it anymore, but it's the thought that counts.

Which Clinton would this be?

[Young Paleocon]

George Clinton I believe.

[Galileo Galilei]

Which Clinton would this be?

George Clinton of New York was against the Constitution. New York was unique in that it delegation at the Constitutional convention was the only large state to oppose it.

Clinton had instructed delegates Yates, Lansing and Hamilton to only ammend the Articles of Confederation, and Yates & Lansing outvoted Hamilton.

Finally disgusted, Yates and Lansing left, and then Hamilton came back to vote, but he couldn't vote because New York needed two delegates to vote. Hamilton did sign the Constitution, however.

At the New York ratifying convention, some delegates agreed to vote for ratification if a bill-of-rights were added to it, and they ratfied by a close vote 30-27, I believe.

The Bill-of-Rights is a rare case were a very importnat political promise was kept. James Madison introduced it in the first congress on June 8, and then fought for it until it was passed and ratified two years later. You will not see any modern politician do such a thing (except Ron Paul, but he does not have the power that Madison had).

[Galileo Galilei]

Hey, come on guys, these guys have zero votes:

George Read (signed constitution & declaration of independence)
John Hancock (first president of the U.S., signed declaration, got constituion ratified in MA)
Alexander Hamilton (co-author of federalist papers)
James Wilson (signed constituion & declaration, major speaker at convention)
John Jay (wrote 5 federalist papers, 1st Chief justice of supreme court)
Roger Sherman (signed constituion & declaration, on committee to write declaration, sherman compromise saved convention)
Robert Morris (signed constituion & declaration, financed the revolution)
Gouverneur Morris (wrote most of final text of constitution)
John Dickinson (wrote Letters from a federal farmer, signed constitution)
George Clymer (signed constituion & declaration)

[Young Paleocon]

I don't really think Hamilton should be on here.

[SWATH]

Jefferson was nearly ideologically a purist. So I'm going to have to go with Jefferson. He pondered over his philosophy until it was razor sharp and consistent. He was in love with ideas and philosophy and we have not had a president like that since then, that is until Ron Paul became president in the near future.

[Slutter McGee]

There answer if Washington. He isn't known for his writings, or his speeches. But he could have been king. And he refused. That is why he was the greatest.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[SWATH]

I don't really think Hamilton should be on here.

Well he did help "found" stuff like a central bank and a standing army. So yeah Jefferson should have shived him outside the halls of the continental congress with a quill pen and Washington should have made him walk around with his neck shackled to his knees so he could more quickly lick the stockings of King George III should he encounter him.

[Young Paleocon]

Well he did help "found" stuff like a central bank and a standing army. So yeah Jefferson should have shived him outside the halls of the continental congress with a quill pen and Washington should have made him walk around with his neck shackled to his knees so he could more quickly lick the stockings of King George III should he encounter him.

Better yet, Burr shot his ass.

[Galileo Galilei]

I don't really think Hamilton should be on here.

Hamilton did some bad stuff.

But remember, he wrote 2/3 of the federalist papers which is his true legacy.

He also got Jefferson elected in 1800.

He also signed the Constitution, helped set up the convention, and got it ratified in New York.

He also fought in the revolutionary war.

And he also helped foil the Newburg conspiracy.

[Pennsylvania]

I voted Thomas Paine because I think he was the most consistent. Patrick Henry might have worthy as well.

[Galileo Galilei]

Accomplishments of James Madison, Jr.

Father of the Constitution

Father of the Bill of Rights

Author of the best written Federalist Papers, including # 10

Only president to preserve Constitution during a time of war

One of three greatest defenders of religious liberty in history (with Voltaire, Jefferson)

Graduated from college at Princeton in only two years

Early supporter of independence

Elected at age of only 23 to Virginia Committee on Safety (1774)

Commissioned as Colonel in militia

At age of only 25, wrote plank in Viginia Constituion strengthening religious liberty

Most effective member of continental congress for three years (1780-82), never missed a day of work

Got Jefferson's religious liberty statute passed in 1785 in Virginia

Closest collaborator with Jefferson

Closest collaborator with Washington between 1785 and 1791

Closest collaborator with Hamilton between 1784 and 1789

Closest collaborator with James Monroe (along with Jefferson)

Presidency of John Tyler inspired by Madison

Along with Hamilton and Washington, foiled the Newburg military conspiracy

Prime mover of the Mount Vernon conference (1785)

Prime mover of the Annapolis Convention (1786)

Real founder of democratic-republican party in opposition to Hamilton

Gave greatest anti-central bank speech in histroy in 1791

Wrote the Virginia Resolution in 1798, defending states rights

Wrote the amazing Report of 1800, defending and defining states rights, and also making the greatest staement in favor of freedom of speech in history

Wrote first draft of Washington's Farewell Address

Won most important Supreme Court case of all time, Marbury vs Madison, 1803

According to many contemporaries, Madison "governed the president" as secretary of state to Jefferson

Vetoed the bonus bill in 1817

Appointed Joseph Story the the Supreme Court (served 1811-1845), arguably the greatest defender of the Constitutionliberty ever on the high court

Also appointed Gabriel Duvall to the high court (served 1811-1835), another greta defender of liberty

Only supported revenue tariffs, never corrupting protective tariffs

Most important member of the 1st congress, everything the 1st congress did set a precedent

Expanded liberty at the Virginia Constitutional convention of 1829, which reduced representation for slave owners, and expanded voting rights for whites

Had the coolest wife of any Founding Father, Dolly Madison

Started the Era of Good Feelings

Remained active in public affairs well into his 80s, writing numerous newspaper editorials

Wrote the most frank assessment of his own presidency ever written by an ex-president, the detached memoradum

Wrote 'Advice to My Country' sgortly before his death

Almost unique among the founders, never expressed racism in his speech of in his private letters.

Paul Jennings, his former slave, wrote in 1865 that James Madison was the greatest man in the world.

John Adams said that Madison's presidency achieved more glory than that of Washington, Jefferson, and Adams combined

John Quincy Adams said by implication in 1836 that Madison was the greatest founding father ever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Madison

[Athan]

George Washington.

THEE man. Without him, it would have been a short revolution.

[Theocrat]

For me, it's John Witherspoon. God used him in a mighty way, for he was

A signer of the Declaration of Independence,
A ratifier of the U.S. Constitution,
A representative of New Jersey who served in the Continental Congress,
President of Princeton University,
Responsible for training 37 judges (three of whom made it to the U.S. Supreme Court), 10 Cabinet officers, 12 members of the Continental Congress, 28 U.S. senators, and 49 United States congressmen, one student who became Vice President (Aaron Burr), and another student who became President (James Madison),
On over 100 committees in Congress and was head of the Board of War (essentially, he was the congressional "boss" for Commander-in-Chief George Washington),
A prolific writer in both political and religious matters, and
A prominent leader and pastor of the early Presbyterian church in America

[paulitics]

James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Thomas Paine, Ben Franklin.

[Liberty Star]

The one who said something about Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness. The coolest dude ever.

[heavenlyboy34]

Hamilton did some bad stuff.

But remember, he wrote 2/3 of the federalist papers which is his true legacy.

He also got Jefferson elected in 1800.

He also signed the Constitution, helped set up the convention, and got it ratified in New York.

He also fought in the revolutionary war.

And he also helped foil the Newburg conspiracy.

Have you READ his Federalist essays? Not exactly freedom oriented. :p

[Galileo Galilei]

Have you READ his Federalist essays? Not exactly freedom oriented. :p

I have read them. They are freedom orientated. Can you site an example?

[Truth Warrior]

Index to the Antifederalist Papers
http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/index.htm (http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/index.htm)

[Galileo Galilei]

Index to the Antifederalist Papers
http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/index.htm (http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/index.htm)

Are you aware that all but two of the founding fathers above supported the Constitution? (Henry, Sam Adams excepted)

And these two supported it after it was ratified.

UPDATE:

Mason also opposed, see below.

[krazy kaju]

1. George Mason

2. Thomas Jefferson

[Truth Warrior]

Are you aware that all but two of the founding fathers above supported the Constitution? (Henry, Sam Adams excepted)

And these two supported it after it was ratified. Yes I am.

Are you aware of the total population at the time of the "ratification" and how few were even allowed to vote and of the numbers of those that voted in opposition?

Check out Article VII. ;)

Thanks! :)

[Galileo Galilei]

1. George Mason

2. Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson supported the Constitution after Madison expalined it to him. Jefferson wanted a bill of rights added, which Madison did. Patrick Henry tried to block the bill of rights.

You'rwe right about Mason, I got him confused with Edmund Randolph. Randolph didn;t sign the Constitution, but supported it at ratification.

Mason supported the Constitution after the bill of rights was added.

[Galileo Galilei]

Yes I am.

Are you aware of the total population at the time of the "ratification" and how few were even allowed to vote and of the numbers of those that voted in opposition?

Check out Article VII. ;)

Thanks! :)

The elections for the ratification debates, at the urging of Madison, liberalized the property qualifications for voting. At the time, they were the most democratic elections the world had yet seen on a wide scale.

[Young Paleocon]

Why did Henry try to block the Bill of Rights?

[Galileo Galilei]

Yes I am.

Are you aware of the total population at the time of the "ratification" and how few were even allowed to vote and of the numbers of those that voted in opposition?

Check out Article VII. ;)

Thanks! :)

Remarking on your point of opposition, you are correct, the vote was close in many states, including Virginia, New York, Massachusettes, North Carolina, and a few others.

But ALL states eventually received a majority as the issues were hashed out.

The lack of a bill-of-rights was the primary cause of rejection, and that was fixed.

Don't forget that your great hero Patrick Henry spent TWO YEARS trying to block the bill-of-rights. Wow, he's a great defender of liberty.

[heavenlyboy34]

I have read them. They are freedom orientated. Can you site an example?

For one, in paper no. 59, Hamilton shows us how much he distrusts states and individuals. :p

Here's (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff106.html)a more detailed, professional critique. I don't have time to write such essay right now, but I hope this helps illustrate my point. :);)

[Galileo Galilei]

Why did Henry try to block the Bill of Rights?

Henry wanted a 2nd Constitutional convention. He knew that if the bill-of-rights were passed, nobody would support a 2nd convention.

Henry, unlike Jefferson and Madison, never was able to grasp the proper power relationship between the states and the federal government.

[Truth Warrior]

Remarking on your point of opposition, you are correct, the vote was close in many states, including Virginia, New York, Massachusettes, North Carolina, and a few others.

But ALL states eventually received a majority as the issues were hashed out.

The lack of a bill-of-rights was the primary cause of rejection, and that was fixed.

Don't forget that your great hero Patrick Henry spent TWO YEARS trying to block the bill-of-rights. Wow, he's a great defender of liberty.

Thanks! :)

I'll take that as answers of "No", to my specific questions. :(

It looks to me like the anti-feds were the really prescient ones, as things have turned out. ;)

[Galileo Galilei]

For one, in paper no. 59, Hamilton shows us how much he distrusts states and individuals. :p

Here's (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff106.html)a more detailed, professional critique. I don't have time to write such essay right now, but I hope this helps illustrate my point. :);)

So what? Almost of the founding fathers distrusted too much democracy (James Wilson, excepted).

And most of the founding fathers regarded the state governments as corrupted and unwise, including Ben Franklin and Elbridge Gerry.

At the time, the leading founding fathers all had a classical education, including the study of Greece, Rome, and the Enlightenment classics. At the state level, the representatives were frequently uneducated in these things.

[Truth Warrior]

Rockwell: "The Constitution would be a major improvement over what we have today. But we need to realize that the Constitution itself represented a major increase in government power over the Articles of Confederation, which would have served us quite well had it not been overthrown. I'm not impressed by the bunch that foisted the Constitution on us. They were really up to no good. We've all but forgotten that most everyone opposed it at the time. It only squeaked through once the Bill of Rights was tacked on. The Bill of Rights isn't perfect, but it at least had the advantage of spelling out what the government could not do. In a rather ingenious twist, even that has been perverted: it is now seen as a mandate for the federal government to tell lower orders of government what they cannot do, meaning that it ends up being a force for centralization. This is such a tragedy. If Patrick Henry could see what became of it, I'm sure he never would have tolerated it. The same might be true of Hamilton, for that matter. So long as we are talking about founding documents, the one that really deserves more attention is the Declaration of Independence. Now here is an inspiring document that shows us where we should go in the future!"

[heavenlyboy34]

rockwell: "the constitution would be a major improvement over what we have today. But we need to realize that the constitution itself represented a major increase in government power over the articles of confederation, which would have served us quite well had it not been overthrown. I'm not impressed by the bunch that foisted the constitution on us. They were really up to no good. We've all but forgotten that most everyone opposed it at the time. It only squeaked through once the bill of rights was tacked on. The bill of rights isn't perfect, but it at least had the advantage of spelling out what the government could not do. In a rather ingenious twist, even that has been perverted: It is now seen as a mandate for the federal government to tell lower orders of government what they cannot do, meaning that it ends up being a force for centralization. This is such a tragedy. If patrick henry could see what became of it, i'm sure he never would have tolerated it. The same might be true of hamilton, for that matter. So long as we are talking about founding documents, the one that really deserves more attention is the declaration of independence. Now here is an inspiring document that shows us where we should go in the future!"

+1776! :d:)

[Galileo Galilei]

Thanks! :)

I'll take that as answers of "No", to my specific questions. :(

It looks to me like the anti-feds were the really prescient ones, as things have turned out. ;)

Really? You're going to blame the founding fathers, all of whom eventually supported the Constitution, for the failures of the 20th and 21st century?

Have you ever heard the quote that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance? After the founding generation was over, the next generations started to drop the ball.

Blaming someone 200 years ago for a problem today is just stupid. Let's blame Thomas Paine for socialism then, huh?

Have you ever read Madison's tract that he prepared before the Constitutional Convention titled "Confederacies Ancient and Modern"?

Madison studied every known confederation (that united against a powerful enemy) where he could get his hands on information, including the Greek city states, German confederations, Italian city states, etc.

Do you know what he found out?

He found that in every case, after the external threat was removed, the confederation decayed into civil wars, foreign intruges, and anarchy, all at the expense of liberty and property rights.

That why he supported a relatively strong central government at first (but way weaker than what we have today). He didn't want history to repeat itself.

Then, after the Consitution was in place, in consultation with Jefferson, he realized the central government was strong enough to survive, so he fought tooth and nail to support the plain language of the Constitution.

Jefferson and Madison founded the Virginia dynasty that lasted 24 years, finishing up with Monroe. Then John Quincy Adams basically continued their policies. Jackson wasn't bad either, although he had some good and bad deviations. But after Jackson, most of the next 8 presidents basically followed the principles of Madison, including John Tyler, Fillmore, van Buren, Pierce, and Buchanan.

These generations never solved the problem of slavery. They could have. Because they didn't, the Industrial revolution passed the South by, and opened things up for the crimes of Lincoln.

[Young Paleocon]

Really? You're going to blame the founding fathers, all of whom eventually supported the Constitution, for the failures of the 20th and 21st century?

Have you ever heard the quote that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance? After the founding generation was over, the next generations started to drop the ball.

Blaming someone 200 years ago for a problem today is just stupid. Let's blame Thomas Paine for socialism then, huh?

Have you ever read Madison's tract that he prepared before the Constitutional Convention titled "Confederacies Ancient and Modern"?

Madison studied every known confederation (that united against a powerful enemy) where he could get his hands on information, including the Greek city states, German confederations, Italian city states, etc.

Do you know what he found out?

He found that in every case, after the external threat was removed, the confederation decayed into civil wars, foreign intruges, and anarchy, all at the expense of liberty and property rights.

That why he supported a relatively strong central government at first (but way weaker than what we have today). He didn't want history to repeat itself.

Then, after the Consitution was in place, in consultation with Jefferson, he realized the central government was strong enough to survive, so he fought tooth and nail to support the plain language of the Constitution.

Jefferson and Madison founded the Virginia dynasty that lasted 24 years, finishing up with Monroe. Then John Quincy Adams basically continued their policies. Jackson wasn't bad either, although he had some good and bad deviations. But after Jackson, most of the next 8 presidents basically followed the principles of Madison, including John Tyler, Fillmore, van Buren, Pierce, and Buchanan.

These generations never solved the problem of slavery. They could have. Because they didn't, the Industrial revolution passed the South by, and opened things up for the crimes of Lincoln.

Even die Schweiz?

[Galileo Galilei]

Rockwell: "The Constitution would be a major improvement over what we have today. But we need to realize that the Constitution itself represented a major increase in government power over the Articles of Confederation, which would have served us quite well had it not been overthrown. I'm not impressed by the bunch that foisted the Constitution on us. They were really up to no good. We've all but forgotten that most everyone opposed it at the time. It only squeaked through once the Bill of Rights was tacked on. The Bill of Rights isn't perfect, but it at least had the advantage of spelling out what the government could not do. In a rather ingenious twist, even that has been perverted: it is now seen as a mandate for the federal government to tell lower orders of government what they cannot do, meaning that it ends up being a force for centralization. This is such a tragedy. If Patrick Henry could see what became of it, I'm sure he never would have tolerated it. The same might be true of Hamilton, for that matter. So long as we are talking about founding documents, the one that really deserves more attention is the Declaration of Independence. Now here is an inspiring document that shows us where we should go in the future!"

While I'm a fan and friend of Lew Rockwell, this comment is way off the mark.

First of all, almost all of the leading Founding Fathers disagreed that the Articles of Confederation would have served us well.

For one thing, doesn't Rockwell support free trade?

With the articles, all 13 colonies had trade regulations and tariffs. Can you imagine trying to engage in commerce when you have to pay taxes every time you pass through another state? Or inland states have to pay to get to the coast?

Can you imagine all the wars fought over the western lands, since each colony had conflicting claims out there?

The declaration of Independence is great, but it doesn't spell out hardly any legally binding law. The Constitution does that. People in Europe had been arguing of "natural rights" for over a century, but until they are written down into law, they don't do all that much good.

England today doesn't have a written Constitution. They have a bloated central government, too, but don't have much to fall back on.

We have the Constitution, which Ron Paul and future generations can fall back on for liberty.

[sailor]

John Paul Jones

[Truth Warrior]

Really? You're going to blame the founding fathers, all of whom eventually supported the Constitution, for the failures of the 20th and 21st century?

Have you ever heard the quote that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance? After the founding generation was over, the next generations started to drop the ball.

Blaming someone 200 years ago for a problem today is just stupid. Let's blame Thomas Paine for socialism then, huh?

Have you ever read Madison's tract that he prepared before the Constitutional Convention titled "Confederacies Ancient and Modern"?

Madison studied every known confederation (that united against a powerful enemy) where he could get his hands on information, including the Greek city states, German confederations, Italian city states, etc.

Do you know what he found out?

He found that in every case, after the external threat was removed, the confederation decayed into civil wars, foreign intruges, and anarchy, all at the expense of liberty and property rights.

That why he supported a relatively strong central government at first (but way weaker than what we have today). He didn't want history to repeat itself.

Then, after the Consitution was in place, in consultation with Jefferson, he realized the central government was strong enough to survive, so he fought tooth and nail to support the plain language of the Constitution.

Jefferson and Madison founded the Virginia dynasty that lasted 24 years, finishing up with Monroe. Then John Quincy Adams basically continued their policies. Jackson wasn't bad either, although he had some good and bad deviations. But after Jackson, most of the next 8 presidents basically followed the principles of Madison, including John Tyler, Fillmore, van Buren, Pierce, and Buchanan.

These generations never solved the problem of slavery. They could have. Because they didn't, the Industrial revolution passed the South by, and opened things up for the crimes of Lincoln.

'Lysander Spooner once said that he believed "that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize." At the same time, he could not exonerate the Constitution, for it "has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." It is hard to argue with that.' -- Thomas E. Woods Jr

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
Thomas Jefferson (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/thomas_jefferson.html)

[Truth Warrior]

While I'm a fan and friend of Lew Rockwell, this comment is way off the mark.

First of all, almost all of the leading Founding Fathers disagreed that the Articles of Confederation would have served us well.

For one thing, doesn't Rockwell support free trade?

With the articles, all 13 colonies had trade regulations and tariffs. Can you imagine trying to engage in commerce when you have to pay taxes every time you pass through another state? Or inland states have to pay to get to the coast?

Can you imagine all the wars fought over the western lands, since each colony had conflicting claims out there?

The declaration of Independence is great, but it doesn't spell out hardly any legally binding law. The Constitution does that. People in Europe had been arguing of "natural rights" for over a century, but until they are written down into law, they don't do all that much good.

England today doesn't have a written Constitution. They have a bloated central government, too, but don't have much to fall back on.

We have the Constitution, which Ron Paul and future generations can fall back on for liberty. ;)

The Illegality, Immorality, and Violence of All Political Action
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1537946&postcount=109 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1537946&postcount=109)

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Truth Warrior]

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

How about Article VII? ;)

Thanks! :)

[Galileo Galilei]

'Lysander Spooner once said that he believed "that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize." At the same time, he could not exonerate the Constitution, for it "has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." It is hard to argue with that.' -- Thomas E. Woods Jr

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
Thomas Jefferson (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/thomas_jefferson.html)

so the Constitution isn't perfect. Brilliant.

it is not perfect, but the best ever yet created by man.

[Uriel999]

Where was Richard Henry Lee! He was incredibly important.

[Galileo Galilei]

;)

The Illegality, Immorality, and Violence of All Political Action
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1537946&postcount=109 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1537946&postcount=109)

So does Ron Paul fall under that? He's a congressman?

[Galileo Galilei]

Where was Richard Henry Lee! He was incredibly important.

He was a late cut. He introduced the resolution for Independence.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Truth Warrior]

so the Constitution isn't perfect. Brilliant.

it is not perfect, but the best ever yet created by man. I would say that NOT PERFECT is anywhere even close to being NEAR to being on the table.

Have you read the Constitution of the NOW DEFUNCT USSR?

How many others have you compared it to?

You're sadly reminding me of the captured squad in "The Manchurian Candidate" reciting their programmed responses. :(

[Truth Warrior]

Article VII

The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same.

Doesn't that seem just a bit "fishy" to you for some reasons?

The D of I was required to be unanimous. ;)

Thanks! :)

[mconder]

I say Thomas Jefferson, because he makes the case for liberty better than any other in his writings. I can forgive him for some of his person and public failings based on that. Well...more than that, I really have no right to make judgment on his personal life. Thomas Paine was great as well, but the fact that revolution was kind of a profession for him, not as impressed.

[Truth Warrior]

So does Ron Paul fall under that? He's a congressman? He does for me. But Ron doesn't seem to have caused the House too much trouble over his now eleven terms. I like Ron the individual. ;)

BTW, Lew likes LeFevre too. :)

Thanks!

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Galileo Galilei]

That is the great thing about Article V. Just in case something was fishy.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

This was Madison's idea. Believe it or not, most Constitutions to that date had no way to amend them.

[Truth Warrior]

That is the great thing about Article V. Just in case something was fishy.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. Article V had NO effect until AFTER the whole thing was ratified.

BTW, it wasn't ratified or even voted on buy the state legislatures. The Federalists didn't report it back to them, as they were authorized and instructed to do. ;) They set up "conventions" instead. :p

That's what makes Article VII "fishy" to me. :(

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Crowish]

Robert Morris is one of my gr-gr...grandfathers.

[Truth Warrior]

That is what is so nice about Article V, anything that seemed fishy can be corrected by amendment... hmmm ponders whether to post it again.... yes, I think I will because you seem to still be debating the merits of the constitution. I can confidently say by any manner of logic that Article V nullifies your whole argument. Maybe I can fit this into my signature.

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

House: 435 * 2/3 = 290
Senate: 100 * 2/3 = 67

So you only need 357 people in congress. Do I need to run the math on 75% as well to illustrate we are not talking about a lot of people to change it?

But it wasn't and here we are 220 years later. :rolleyes: The anti-feds got it right.<IMHO> ;)

Revolution of 1800
Politics and Public Service
Some observers have regarded Jefferson (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h664.html)'s election in 1800 (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h448.html) as revolutionary. This may be true in a restrained sense of the word, since the change from Federalist (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h377.html) leadership to Republican (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h446.html) was entirely legal and bloodless. Nevertheless, the changes were profound. The Federalists lost control of both the presidency and the Congress.

By 1800, the American people were ready for a change. Under Washington (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h658.html) and Adams (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h460.html), the Federalists had established a strong government. They sometimes failed, however, to honor the principle that the American government must be responsive to the will of the people. They had followed policies that alienated large groups. For example, in 1798 they enacted a tax on houses, land and slaves, affecting every property owner in the country.

Jefferson had steadily gathered behind him a great mass of small farmers, shopkeepers and other workers; they asserted themselves in the election of 1800. Jefferson enjoyed extraordinary favor because of his appeal to American idealism. In his inaugural address, the first such speech in the new capital of Washington, D.C. (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1932.html), he promised "a wise and frugal government" to preserve order among the inhabitants, but would "leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry, and improvement." Jefferson's mere presence in The White House (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h461.html) encouraged democratic behavior. White House guests were encouraged to shake hands with the president, rather than bowing as had been the Federalist practice.

Guests at state dinners were seated at round tables, which emphasized a sense of equality. He taught his subordinates to regard themselves merely as trustees of the people. He encouraged agriculture and westward expansion. Believing America to be a haven for the oppressed, he urged a liberal naturalization law.

Federalists feared the worst. Some worried that Jefferson, the great admirer of the French, would set up a guillotine on Capitol Hill.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h470.html (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h470.html)

[max]

love it...not even one vote for alexander hamilton.....what a smart bunch u ron paul fans are!

hamilton was a central banker tool

[JaylieWoW]

I recently did an article for my company's newsletter (we are an environmental consulting firm) on Benjamin Franklin. After researching the article, my esteem of Franklin put him up just above Jefferson. Franklin really did some rather AMAZING things in his lifetime.

[Truth Warrior]

I recently did an article for my company's newsletter (we are an environmental consulting firm) on Benjamin Franklin. After researching the article, my esteem of Franklin put him up just above Jefferson. Franklin really did some rather AMAZING things in his lifetime. I tend to still hold being a Freemason honcho against old Ben, FWIW. ;)

[heavenlyboy34]

but it wasn't and here we are 220 years later. :rolleyes: the anti-feds got it right.<imho> ;)

+9999999 ;)

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Truth Warrior]

Before you go overboard on Jefferson mania given his great political opportunity for constitutional amendments that you just cited. Let us not forget Jefferson's broad use of power. Jefferson did not get a constitutional amendment for the Louisiana purchase and authorized an embargo against England. Jefferson said each generation "has a right to choose for itself the form of government it believes most promotive of its own happiness." And "we might as well require a man to still wear the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

http://books.google.com/books?id=T0IGUhxqUuYC&pg=PA247&lpg=PA247&dq=constitutional+amendments+proposed+by+jefferson&source=bl&ots=UTacfCNULD&sig=eLEa9ZAforEhBKn41m8FJExK88I&hl=en&ei=i-62SeTRLoOftwef07y8CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA249,M1

page 249 You're just singing to the preacher, Dude. :) I may have been a knowledgeable fan of TJ since before you were born. ;)

:D

"Then I say, the earth belongs to each of these generations during its course, fully and in its own right. The second generation receives it clear of the debts and incumbrances of the first, the third of the second, and so on. For if the first could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not to the living generation. Then, no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of its own existence." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Bluewaters]

Proud to be

[Bluewaters]

I,ll be proud to uphold all of your first,if you,ll help me keep from using my 2.Thanks in advance

[Flash]

Thomas Jefferson!

[Bluewaters]

Ya,ll better start singin out bout ur first,cause they reallly aint gonnna like when i sing out from 2

[Galileo Galilei]

Article V had NO effect until AFTER the whole thing was ratified.

BTW, it wasn't ratified or even voted on buy the state legislatures. The Federalists didn't report it back to them, as they were authorized and instructed to do. ;) They set up "conventions" instead. :p

That's what makes Article VII "fishy" to me. :(

Article VII was a brilliant idea by James Madison. He wanted the Constitution to be ratified by the PEOPLE, not the STATES. That is in fact, what happened.

Also, by implication, that means to un-ratify the Constitution, a state would have to call for an un-ratifying convention, which the South did not do during the civil war.

Therefore, the secession was illegal. It could have been done legally, but they didn't bother.

[Galileo Galilei]

Robert Morris is one of my gr-gr...grandfathers.

That's cool!

[Galileo Galilei]

Before you go overboard on Jefferson mania given his great political opportunity for constitutional amendments that you just cited. Let us not forget Jefferson's broad use of power. Jefferson did not get a constitutional amendment for the Louisiana purchase and authorized an embargo against England. Jefferson said each generation "has a right to choose for itself the form of government it believes most promotive of its own happiness." And "we might as well require a man to still wear the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

http://books.google.com/books?id=T0IGUhxqUuYC&pg=PA247&lpg=PA247&dq=constitutional+amendments+proposed+by+jefferson&source=bl&ots=UTacfCNULD&sig=eLEa9ZAforEhBKn41m8FJExK88I&hl=en&ei=i-62SeTRLoOftwef07y8CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA249,M1

page 249

The two items you cite regarding Jefferson are interesting.

First of all, both were the idea of Secretary of State James Madison, who was pretty much running the executive branch during a substantial portion of Jefferson's presidency.

The Louisiana Purchase was in the best interests of the United States. It was a unique situation not foreseen by the founders. Put yourself in Jefferson's shoes and ask what YOU would have done before you cast stones. There wasn't time to delay, in those days we did not have telephones and fax machines.

Regarding the embargo, that was Madison's idea as well, and was authorized by congress. It was a good idea. Is this site not anti-war? The embargo was economic warfare, which is way better than real warfare. The embargo was tried for a few years until we couldn't take it anymore and attacked the aggressors. England (and France to a lesser extent) were seizing our ships, hundreds of them. Do you think it is Libertarian to seize the ships of another nation? I didn't think so. The war of 1812 was the Second War of Independence. We were never really free from England until 1815.

The embargo was working, and at about the time we declared war, England was getting ready to repeal their directives against our ships. But with the slow communications, the war had already started before Madison and the Congress knew. The fact is, the Second War of Independence was in the best interests of the United States, and secured a greater amount of liberty for our people. It also defended property rights and led to free trade and prosperity.

Again, I ask you. What would YOU have done under those conditions? Before you throw stones at Madison and Jefferson, get the facts. Madison and Jefferson knew the facts, a lot more facts than any historian today could ever know. Don't just blindly regurgitate the latest article you read on LewRockwell. Use your BRAIN. Jefferson and Madison are the greatest Libertarian Constitutionalists and most enlightened executive leaders the world has ever known. Do you REALLY think Lew Rockwell and Thomas Woods know more about what happened 200 years ago than Madison and Jefferson? Wake up, people!!!

[Galileo Galilei]

Accomplishments of James Madison, Jr.

Father of the Constitution

Father of the Bill of Rights

Author of the best written Federalist Papers, including # 10

Only president to preserve Constitution during a time of war

One of three greatest defenders of religious liberty in history (with Voltaire, Jefferson)

Graduated from college at Princeton in only two years

Early supporter of independence

Elected at age of only 23 to Virginia Committee on Safety (1774)

Commissioned as Colonel in militia

At age of only 25, wrote plank in Viginia Constituion strengthening religious liberty

Most effective member of continental congress for three years (1780-82), never missed a day of work

Got Jefferson's religious liberty statute passed in 1785 in Virginia

Closest collaborator with Jefferson

Closest collaborator with Washington between 1785 and 1791

Closest collaborator with Hamilton between 1784 and 1789

Closest collaborator with James Monroe (along with Jefferson)

Presidency of John Tyler inspired by Madison

Along with Hamilton and Washington, foiled the Newburg military conspiracy

Prime mover of the Mount Vernon conference (1785)

Prime mover of the Annapolis Convention (1786)

Real founder of democratic-republican party in opposition to Hamilton

Gave greatest anti-central bank speech in histroy in 1791

Wrote the Virginia Resolution in 1798, defending states rights

Wrote the amazing Report of 1800, defending and defining states rights, and also making the greatest staement in favor of freedom of speech in history

Wrote first draft of Washington's Farewell Address

Won most important Supreme Court case of all time, Marbury vs Madison, 1803

According to many contemporaries, Madison "governed the president" as secretary of state to Jefferson

Vetoed the bonus bill in 1817

Appointed Joseph Story the the Supreme Court (served 1811-1845), arguably the greatest defender of the Constitutionliberty ever on the high court

Also appointed Gabriel Duvall to the high court (served 1811-1835), another greta defender of liberty

Only supported revenue tariffs, never corrupting protective tariffs

Most important member of the 1st congress, everything the 1st congress did set a precedent

Expanded liberty at the Virginia Constitutional convention of 1829, which reduced representation for slave owners, and expanded voting rights for whites

Had the coolest wife of any Founding Father, Dolly Madison

Started the Era of Good Feelings

Remained active in public affairs well into his 80s, writing numerous newspaper editorials

Wrote the most frank assessment of his own presidency ever written by an ex-president, the detached memoradum

Wrote 'Advice to My Country' sgortly before his death

Almost unique among the founders, never expressed racism in his speech of in his private letters.

Paul Jennings, his former slave, wrote in 1865 that James Madison was the greatest man in the world.

John Adams said that Madison's presidency achieved more glory than that of Washington, Jefferson, and Adams combined

John Quincy Adams said by implication in 1836 that Madison was the greatest founding father ever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Madison

I forgot to mention that Madison also wrote the Helvidius papers, in the Helvidius-Pacificus Debates of 1793. Hamilton was Pacificus. Liberty Fund calls these debates equal or greater in importance than the Lincoln-Douglas Debates and the Webster-Hayne Debates of 1830.

These debates centered around foreign policy, and once again Madison was on the right side and Hamilton on the wrong side. Madison argued for more foreign policy power to the Senate and less to the president, a bold move at the time since Washington was president.

PACIFICUS-HELVIDIUS DEBATES OF 1793-1794, THE (Paperback)
by Alexander Hamilton (Author), James Madison (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/PACIFICUS-HELVIDIUS-DEBATES-1793-1794-Alexander-Hamilton/dp/0865976899

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[NightOwl]

Article VII was a brilliant idea by James Madison. He wanted the Constitution to be ratified by the PEOPLE, not the STATES. That is in fact, what happened.


Oh, it is? I guess I missed the national referendum that was held. All my dusty old books mention are a bunch of individual state ratifying conventions. Guess I'd better get those updated!

[Galileo Galilei]

Oh, it is? I guess I missed the national referendum that was held. All my dusty old books mention are a bunch of individual state ratifying conventions. Guess I'd better get those updated!

It was an indirect national referendum. The Constitution was NOT ratified by any state legislature. Nor was it ratified by people selected by any state legislature. The ratification process completely bypassed the state legislatures.

[Galileo Galilei]

It is not about what I would do. If one is going to support a strict interpretation of the constitution then one must be objective when looking at history regardless of their bias towards any of the founders. I did not cast stones. I regurgitated facts.

You are suggesting under certain circumstances it is ok to exercise power not enumerated in the constitution. I simply do not subscribe to your viewpoint.

Nor am I particularly fond about the fact there exist U.S. territories that are not states.

The Louisiana Purchase treaty was ratified by the Senate. On what basis do you claim it to be unconstitutional?

Treaty signing

On April 30, 1803, the Louisiana Purchase Treaty ,called by some "the letter that bought a continent", was signed by Robert Livingston, James Monroe, and Barbé Marbois in Paris. Jefferson announced the treaty to the American people on July 4. After the signing of the Louisiana Purchase agreement in 1803, Livingston made this famous statement, "We have lived long, but this is the noblest work of our whole lives...From this day the United States take their place among the powers of the first rank."[9] The United States Senate ratified the treaty with a vote of twenty-four to seven on October 20; on the following day, it authorized President Jefferson to take possession of the territory and establish a temporary military government. In legislation enacted on October 31, Congress made temporary provisions for local civil government to continue as it had under French and Spanish rule and authorized the President to use military forces to maintain order. Plans were also set forth for several missions to explore and chart the territory, the most famous being the Lewis and Clark Expedition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Purchase

Get your head out of the sand. I'll ride with Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe on this one.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Galileo Galilei]

“The less we say about the constitutional difficulties respecting Louisiana the better,” he told Madison. “What is necessary for surmounting them must be done sub-silentio.” - Thomas Jefferson

"Cuba can be defended by us without a navy, and this develops the principle which ought to limit our views. Nothing should ever be accepted which would require a navy to . defend it." -Thomas Jefferson

What exactly ARE the Constitutional difficulties? I don't see any.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Truth Warrior]

Why did you bring the song and dance of Jefferson up who blew arguably the greatest Article V opportunity in U.S. history? Article V was and still is, the permanent solution that can be obtained peacefully. Yeah, funny how those things just don't quite ever seem work out ain't it? Show me. :p :rolleyes: And five aces beats a Royal Flush.

So you don't really care that the Federalists pulled off an illegal, immoral, unauthorized coup on the A o C, as long as you have your non-functional Article V. It takes so little to please some folks. :(

Oh, and BTW .....
The Federal Constitution Is Dead (http://www.lewrockwell.com/gutzman/gutzman17.html)
Kevin Gutzman on who killed it.

[Truth Warrior]

It was an indirect national referendum. The Constitution was NOT ratified by any state legislature. Nor was it ratified by people selected by any state legislature. The ratification process completely bypassed the state legislatures. And completely bypassed "We the People of the United States" TOO. It's usually not a real good portent of coming events when your document starts out, first thing, with a bald-faced LIE. :p :rolleyes:

No Treason. No. VI, The Constitution of No Authority. (1870).* (http://www.lysanderspooner.org/notreason.htm#no6)

[Galileo Galilei]

Page 23

Letter from Jefferson to John Dickinson, August 9, 1803.

"But there is a difficulty in this acquisition which presents a handle to the malcontents among us, though they have not yet discovered it. Our confederation is certainly confined to limits established by the revolution. The general government has no powers but such as the constitution has given it; and it has not given it a power of holding foreign territory, and still less of incorporating it into the Union..."

http://books.google.com/books?id=vB0IAAAAIAAJ&dq=louisiana+purchase+%2B+unconstitutional&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=GR2h2UB9C8&sig=zj1u2N_x_fJ47uH0N-hnsaBUm-8&hl=en&ei=yGS3SfPIH-PetgeLkaWmCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA23,M1

Power to make and ratify treaties is given in the Constitution, and given to the president and the Senate. You still haven't explained anything.

Sorting out land ownership issues has always been a part of treaty making powers, it was part of the common law and predates Magna Carta. Go read some Vattal or Grotius.

There is the strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution, and then there is the anal-retentive interpretation.

[Galileo Galilei]

And completely bypassed "We the People of the United States" TOO. It's usually not a real good portent of coming events when your document starts out, first thing, with a bald-faced LIE. :p :rolleyes:

No Treason. No. VI, The Constitution of No Authority. (1870).* (http://www.lysanderspooner.org/notreason.htm#no6)

The PEOPLE elected the representatives of the ratifying conventions. How would so have done it, smarty pants? You think you're better than James Madison, eh?

[Truth Warrior]

The PEOPLE elected the representatives of the ratifying conventions. How would so have done it, smarty pants? You think you're better than James Madison, eh? What people? How many? Was it legal under the A o C?

Well, I'm certainly taller and I'm not a politician NOR a Federalist cabal coup criminal co-conspirator. So YEAH! ;) :D

[strapko]

I like Thomas Jefferson, because he was a crazy philosopher on the role of government and understood many flaws in different systems of government. His quotes are amazing, his knowlegde of economics/monetary policy were very good as well.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Chester Copperpot]

I have to go with Madison because I'm related to him. :)

(not by blood though)

thats why I voted for Franklin.. Im telling you.. there are a goodly amount of relatives in the liberty movement.. for good reason .

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Truth Warrior]

Has nothing to do with how I feel about the A o C. We already went there. I feel the constitution has the ability to rally American support still. Advocating the constitution has the moral high ground because all public offices are sworn to it.

You want to go from where we are now to the A o C, or maybe even the D o I and redraft the A o C and would probably prefer not to stop and restore the constitution. As far as viable tactics and strategy go, I do not see that happening. The battle for the constitution is already a difficult one. Whether you admit it or not the most viable tactic is the constitution and article v. I do not think you disagree that time is of the essence. No, I'd much rather go forward to:

"Freedom, Peace and Prosperity" -- Ron Paul

And, BTW that tain't NEVER coming from D.C..<IMHO> ;)

Frankly, I think our die was cast and the course was set in 1913. :(

[Galileo Galilei]

What people? How many? Was it legal under the A o C?

Well, I'm certainly taller and I'm not a politician NOR a Federalist cabal coup criminal co-conspirator. So YEAH! ;) :D

Do you even know what you're talking about?

First of all, if PEOPLE hold statewide elections, whose business is it for the STATE to stop them? Are you a statist?

Secondly, the state legislatures authorized the elections for representitives to the ratifying convention, so it was legal.

And the A of C also authorized the declaration introducing the Constitution and ordered it sent to the several states.

Learn your basic history.

You've been duped by the old canard.

[Galileo Galilei]

Now you are just cracking me up. How can Jefferson be your savior on one hand and anal-retentive on the other.

You already cited Jefferson as an expert. Hold on let me see. Ah yes, here it is. Bold and extremely emphasized.



So I reckon Jefferson's own words weren't good enough for you as to the reasons it was unconstitutional. Well I sure as hell am not going to argue with some fool who is criticizing the rest of the thread to wake up because Jefferson knows the constitution better than any of us, and then denies Jefferson's own writings as to why it was unconstitutional.

Jefferson is not the father of the Constitution, James Madison is. Jefferson wasn't even at the Constitutional convention. Nor was Jefferson a profound constitutional thinker.

You also get duped by words. Go by deeds. Jefferson, Monroe, Livingston, anf the Senate ratified the treaty.

You still haven't explained to us why this treaty is supposedly unconstitional, nor have you cited anything specific from Jefferson.

[Truth Warrior]

Do you even know what you're talking about?

First of all, if PEOPLE hold statewide elections, whose business is it for the STATE to stop them? Are you a statist?

Secondly, the state legislatures authorized the elections for representitives to the ratifying convention, so it was legal.

And the A of C also authorized the declaration introducing the Constitution and ordered it sent to the several states.

Learn your basic history.

You've been duped by the old canard. I'm trying to, but you continue to REFUSE to answer the questions? :p

Apparently you also fail to grasp the very simple concept of "We the People of the United States". :( :( :(

Hamilton's involvement alone should be a dead giveaway of "shenanigans" all by itself. :rolleyes:

What was the AUTHORIZED ( legal ) PURPOSE of the 1787 Philadelphia convention?


On January 21, 1786, the Virginia Legislature, following James Madison's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Madison) recommendation, invited all the states to send delegates to Annapolis, Maryland to discuss ways to reduce these interstate conflicts At what came to be known as the Annapolis Convention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annapolis_Convention_(1786)), the few state delegates in attendance endorsed a motion that called for all states to meet in Philadelphia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia) in May, 1787 to discuss ways to improve the Articles of Confederation in a "Grand Convention." Although the states' representatives to the Constitutional Convention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_Convention) in Philadelphia were only authorized to amend the Articles, the representatives held secret, closed-door sessions and wrote a new constitution. The new Constitution gave much more power to the central government, but characterization of the result is disputed. The general goal of the authors was to get as close to a republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic) as was defined by the philosophers throughout the Age of Enlightenment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment); All while trying to balance it against the many difficulties of the interstate relationships. Historian Forrest McDonald, using the ideas of James Madison from Federalist 39, describes the change this way:

The constitutional reallocation of powers created a new form of government, unprecedented under the sun. Every previous national authority either had been centralized or else had been a confederation of sovereign states. The new American system was neither one nor the other; it was a mixture of both.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation#cite_note-8)
When approached after leaving the close of the Federal Convention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Convention), Benjamin Franklin was asked a question. This is the conversation as has been recorded:

The lady asked "Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?"

“A Republic, if you can keep it.” was the response of Benjamin Franklin.

Madison superiority addendum:

I'm NOT a lawyer. ;)
I didn't marry a gal named "Dolly". :D

Care to try and whistle past that graveyard again? ;)

Do you want to tell Lew or just quit now while you're behind? :)

[Galileo Galilei]

I'm trying to, but you continue to REFUSE to answer the questions? :p

Apparently you also fail to grasp the very simple concept of "We the People of the United States". :( :( :(

Hamilton's involvement alone should be a dead giveaway of "shenanigans" all by it itself. :rolleyes:

What was the AUTHORIZED ( legal ) PURPOSE of the 1787 Philadelphia convention?


Madison superiority addendum:

I'm NOT a lawyer. ;)
I didn't marry a gal named "Dolly". :D

Care to try and whistle past that graveyard again? ;)

Do you want to tell Lew or just quit now while you're behind? :)

Who authorized the Declaration of Independence? Who authorized the Continental Congress? Who authorized the Stamp Act congress?

[Truth Warrior]

Who authorized the Declaration of Independence? Who authorized the Continental Congress? Who authorized the Stamp Act congress? Good questions, we may choose to cover them later. ;) :D

[Truth Warrior]

Jefferson is not the father of the Constitution, James Madison is. Jefferson wasn't even at the Constitutional convention. Nor was Jefferson a profound constitutional thinker.

You also get duped by words. Go by deeds. Jefferson, Monroe, Livingston, anf the Senate ratified the treaty.

You still haven't explained to us why this treaty is supposedly unconstitional, nor have you cited anything specific from Jefferson. The Federalist cabal was so fearful of TJ's popularity among the people, they thought his opposition just might scuttle the attempted coup. So they waited until he was safely occupied in France, before making their move. :p ;)

"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make ye free" .... but first it will really tick ye off.

[Galileo Galilei]

The Federalist cabal was so fearful of TJ's popularity among the people, they thought his opposition just might scuttle the attempted coup. So they waited until he was safely occupied in France, before making their move. :p ;)

"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make ye free" .... but first it will really tick ye off.

Jefferson never opposed the Constitution. He road with James Madison.

[Galileo Galilei]

What people? How many? Was it legal under the A o C?

Well, I'm certainly taller and I'm not a politician NOR a Federalist cabal coup criminal co-conspirator. So YEAH! ;) :D

The Founding Fathers authorized the Constitutional Convention.

Ben Franklin

James Madison

George Washington

George Mason

Robert Morris

Edmund Randolph (Governor of Virginia)

Elbridge Gerry

James Wilson

John Rutledge

George Wythe

Luther Martin

G. Morris

John Dickinson

Gunning Bedford

Roger Sherman

William Paterson

Oliver Ellsworth

Charles Pinckney

General Charles Cotesworth Pinckney

Dr. Hugh Williamson

Dan Carrol

Alexander Hamilton

Pierce Butler

Abraham Baldwin

George Read

George Clymer

John Blair

Nathaniel Gorham

etc.

Now, again, tell me who authorized the Declaration of Independence and the continental congress?

You have an illogical double standard.

[Truth Warrior]

The Founding Fathers authorized the Constitutional Convention.

Ben Franklin

James Madison

George Washington

George Mason

Robert Morris

Edmund Randolph (Governor of Virginia)

Elbridge Gerry

James Wilson

John Rutledge

George Wythe

Luther Martin

G. Morris

John Dickinson

Gunning Bedford

Roger Sherman

William Paterson

Oliver Ellsworth

Charles Pinckney

General Charles Cotesworth Pinckney

Dr. Hugh Williamson

Dan Carrol

Alexander Hamilton

Pierce Butler

Abraham Baldwin

George Read

George Clymer

John Blair

Nathaniel Gorham

etc.

Now, again, tell me who authorized the Declaration of Independence and the continental congress?

You have an illogical double standard. By WHAT authority? :p They weren't the FFs then. They were just a bunch of guys, out of several million. They weren't GODS for Pete's sake, just politicians. About the same as in the 21st century, except in general, somewhat brighter. :D

Now, how about my OTHER unanswered questions?

Not AT ALL. We're talking about the CONstitution. You want to change the subject, for understandable reasons. I do not. What's the "double standard' about that?

Chill! :)

[Kraig]

By WHAT authority? :p They weren't the FFs then. They were just a bunch of guys, out of several million. They weren't GODS for Pete's sake, just politicians. About the same as in the 21st century, except in general, somewhat brighter. :D

Yeah and alot of people here need to realize that IMO!

[Truth Warrior]

Jefferson never opposed the Constitution. He road with James Madison. Jefferson was in France during what years? Is it not reasonable, that if he supported it, he would have been there? :D

[heavenlyboy34]

By WHAT authority? :p They weren't the FFs then. They were just a bunch of guys, out of several million. They weren't GODS for Pete's sake, just politicians. About the same as in the 21st century, except in general, somewhat brighter. :D

Now, how about my OTHER unanswered questions?

Not AT ALL. We're talking about the CONstitution. You want to change the subject, for understandable reasons. I do not. What's the "double standard' about that?

Chill! :)

lolz...your muse is keeping you busy on RPFs today, I see!:D ;) Carry on, sir!

[JohnMeridith]

Samuel Adams is my favorite at this point. I feel like he was the backbone in the beginning, the original "nutty" freedom fighter.

My second choice is George Washington, the man deserves his national holiday BACK and there should be a full year taught about him in school.

[Galileo Galilei]

Jefferson was in France during what years? Is it not reasonable, that if he supported it, he would have been there? :D

You make no sense. Jefferson supported the Convention.

[Truth Warrior]

You make no sense. Jefferson supported the Convention. And the PURPOSE of the convention was WHAT? Are you saying TJ was a Federalist? :D

[Truth Warrior]

Personally, I'd like to see Aaron Burr added to the list. :D

[Galileo Galilei]

By WHAT authority? :p They weren't the FFs then. They were just a bunch of guys, out of several million. They weren't GODS for Pete's sake, just politicians. About the same as in the 21st century, except in general, somewhat brighter. :D

Now, how about my OTHER unanswered questions?

Not AT ALL. We're talking about the CONstitution. You want to change the subject, for understandable reasons. I do not. What's the "double standard' about that?

Chill! :)

You are wrong on facts. Eight of these men had signed the Declaration of I and were already founding fathers:

Gerry

George Wythe

Wilson

Robert Morris

Clymer

Read

Sherman

Ben Franklin

And George Washington was a founding father already as well, as head of the army.

Hamilton was a war hero.

Almost all the others had served in the Continental or Confederation congress. John Dickinson had served in the Stamp Act congress and written [U]Letters of a Federal Farmer[/I].

Mason had written the Virginia bill-of rights, with help from Madison.

The idea that the convention was illegal is stupid.

All these people were authorized to be there and everything they did was voted on.

They were like ambassadors. If your ambassador is told to negotiate a certain deal, and they negotiate something else, the action by the ambassador is not illegal, it is just not approved.

Example: In 1806, James Monroe negotiated a treaty that was rejected by Jefferson. Monroe's treaty was not illegal.

Likewise, the results of the Constitutional convention may have been different from what some people wanted, but it WAS approved, so it is legal.

You also forget that each delegation had different instructions. I doubt you've ever bothered to go through these in detail.

New York, for example, had instructions to only amend the Articles. But Yates and Lansing left the Convention, and New York did not count when 11 states voted in favor. New York only had one delegate and could not vote. Hamilton signed anyway, which was his right to do so because he supported it personally.

The fact is New York ratified the Constitution.

You simpleton crap that you parrot out on the Convention doesn't bother to mention that all 12 states that sent delegates had different instructions that contradicted each other. This is how it always is, ambassadors from different countries get conflicting instructions, then they work it out.

After they work it out, whatever they worked out has to be ratified.

[Galileo Galilei]

Personally, I'd like to see Aaron Burr added to the list. :D

Really, the black sheep of the founding fathers? The dude Jefferson tried to impeach.

[Galileo Galilei]

And the PURPOSE of the convention was WHAT? Are you saying TJ was a Federalist? :D

He supported ratification, with the promise that a bill-of-rights would be added. His best friend Madison, got it done. On June 8, 1789, Madison introduced the Bill-of-rights in the House.

[Truth Warrior]

You are wrong on facts. Eight of these men had signed the Declaration of I and were already founding fathers:

Gerry

George Wythe

Wilson

Robert Morris

Clymer

Read

Sherman

Ben Franklin

And George Washington was a founding father already as well, as head of the army.

Hamilton was a war hero.

Almost all the others had served in the Continental or Confederation congress. John Dickinson had served in the Stamp Act congress and written [u]Letters of a Federal Farmer[/i].

Mason had written the Virginia bill-of rights, with help from Madison.

The idea that the convention was illegal is stupid.

All these people were authorized to be there and everything they did was voted on.

They were like ambassadors. If your ambassador is told to negotiate a certain deal, and they negotiate something else, the action by the ambassador is not illegal, it is just not approved.

Example: In 1806, James Monroe negotiated a treaty that was rejected by Jefferson. Monroe's treaty was not illegal.

Likewise, the results of the Constitutional convention may have been different from what some people wanted, but it WAS approved, so it is legal.

You also forget that each delegation had different instructions. I doubt you've ever bothered to go through these in detail.

New York, for example, had instructions to only amend the Articles. But Yates and Lansing left the Convention, and New York did not count when 11 states voted in favor. New York only had one delegate and could not vote. Hamilton signed anyway, which was his right to do so because he supported it personally.

The fact is New York ratified the Constitution.

You simpleton crap that you parrot out on the Convention doesn't bother to mention that all 12 states that sent delegates had different instructions that contradicted each other. This is how it always is, ambassadors from different countries get conflicting instructions, then they work it out.

After they work it out, whatever they worked out has to be ratified.

First one to get angry loses. :D

Now how about answering the rest of the questions? ;) They're starting to REALLY pile up.<IMHO> :)

"Complexity is the essence of the con and the hustle."

[Galileo Galilei]

First one to get angry loses. :D

Now how about answering the rest of the questions? ;) They're starting to REALLY pile up.<IMHO> :)

"Complexity is the essence of the con and the hustle."

I don't think you are following what I say. Let someone else pick the issue up.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[werdd]

Thomas Paine, Sam Adams, and George washington

[Young Paleocon]

Galileo have you read "Conceived in Liberty"?

[Truth Warrior]

Really, the black sheep of the founding fathers? The dude Jefferson tried to impeach. You betcha. ;) Just for killing that SOB traitor Hamilton, makes Aaron ACES in my book. He DESERVES the "Medal of Freedom".<IMHO> :D

[Truth Warrior]

I don't think you are following what I say. Let someone else pick the issue up.

You're not answering the questions. I'm following that clearly enough. So, this is NOT a conversation. So, why even bother. Just a waste of time. :p :(

[Truth Warrior]

He supported ratification, with the promise that a bill-of-rights would be added. His best friend Madison, got it done. On June 8, 1789, Madison introduced the Bill-of-rights in the House. Without the B o R, the CONstitution was DOA for TJ. Madison caved. :D

Personally, I think TJ should have held out for a lot more, like something BETTER, legal, moral, ethical, honest, etc. AND what was AUTHORIZED AND from "We the People". :rolleyes: But he didn't, he sold out, and here we ALL now sadly are. :p How about SOMETHING the Anti-Feds could have supported and gotten behind TOO? :rolleyes:

Back to the drawing board, Jim. :rolleyes: And LOSE that BOGUS Article VII crap. :rolleyes:

"I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our constitution - taking from the federal government their power of borrowing." -- Thomas Jefferson

:(

[Truth Warrior]

Thomas Jefferson (http://www.answers.com/topic/thomas-jefferson) described the Tenth Amendment as “the foundation of the Constitution” and added, “to take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn … is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.”
http://www.answers.com/topic/amendment-x-to-the-u-s-constitution (http://www.answers.com/topic/amendment-x-to-the-u-s-constitution)

Voilà! :p :( :mad:

No Treason. No. VI, The Constitution of No Authority. (1870).* (http://www.lysanderspooner.org/notreason.htm#no6)

[Galileo Galilei]

Galileo have you read "Conceived in Liberty"?

I have not, but I've heard of it.

Who is the author and what are some of its key points?

[Truth Warrior]

Conceived In Liberty: A Review (http://www.lewrockwell.com/klassen/klassen26.html)

[Galileo Galilei]

You betcha. ;) Just for killing that SOB traitor Hamilton, makes Aaron ACES in my book. He DESERVES the "Medal of Freedom".<IMHO> :D

You know Hamilton was pivitol in getting Jefferson elected in 1800? We almost ended up with Aaron Burr, a man with no principles at all.

[Truth Warrior]

You know Hamilton was pivitol in getting Jefferson elected in 1800? We almost ended up with Aaron Burr, a man with no principles at all.

Hamilton's Curse (http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo151.html)
Alexander Hamilton's economic and political philosophy is the root of the problem, says Thomas DiLorenzo.

Burr was TJ's Veep.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Burr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Burr)

[Galileo Galilei]

Conceived In Liberty: A Review (http://www.lewrockwell.com/klassen/klassen26.html)

"The Articles of Confederation passed by the Continental Congress in 1777 contradicted the Declaration of Independence, and so the libertarian cause was lost before it had hardly begun." Rothbard

i.e. Rothbard knew better what to do during the revolutionary war than George Washington and the rest of the founding fathers.

"The conservatives, led by the landed aristocracies, the traditional oligarchs of north and south, got what they wanted, a powerful central government designed to protect their financial interests." Rothbard

i.e. Rothbard does not support property rights.

[Truth Warrior]

"the articles of confederation passed by the continental congress in 1777 contradicted the declaration of independence, and so the libertarian cause was lost before it had hardly begun." rothbard

i.e. Rothbard knew better what to do during the revolutionary war than george washington and the rest of the founding fathers.

"the conservatives, led by the landed aristocracies, the traditional oligarchs of north and south, got what they wanted, a powerful central government designed to protect their financial interests." rothbard

i.e. Rothbard does not support property rights.

< roflmao!!! >

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard-lib.html (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard-lib.html)

[heavenlyboy34]

"The Articles of Confederation passed by the Continental Congress in 1777 contradicted the Declaration of Independence, and so the libertarian cause was lost before it had hardly begun." Rothbard

i.e. Rothbard knew better what to do during the revolutionary war than George Washington and the rest of the founding fathers.

"The conservatives, led by the landed aristocracies, the traditional oligarchs of north and south, got what they wanted, a powerful central government designed to protect their financial interests." Rothbard

i.e. Rothbard does not support property rights.

He does from my reading of his stuff. Got any more substantive evidence for your claim? :confused:

[Galileo Galilei]

Hamilton's Curse (http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo151.html)
Alexander Hamilton's economic and political philosophy is the root of the problem, says Thomas DiLorenzo.

Burr was TJ's Veep.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Burr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Burr)

I've read Hamilton's Curse. That's a really good book.

But don't forget that George Washington signed off on all Hamilton's ideas. When George Washington signed a bill into law, that set a powerful precedent.

So the book could have been called Washington's Curse.

Funny, how people here all hate Hamilton, but give Washington a pass.

[Truth Warrior]

I've read Hamilton's Curse. That's a really good book.

But don't forget that George Washington signed off on all Hamilton's ideas. When George Washington signed a bill into law, that set a powerful precedent.

So the book could have been called Washington's Curse.

Funny, how people here all hate Hamilton, but give Washington a pass. George was a FEDERALIST TOO!! DUH!!! :rolleyes: As was John Adams ( Ron's favorite FF, BTW ). ;)

[Galileo Galilei]

He does from my reading of his stuff. Got any more substantive evidence for your claim? :confused:

Rothbard is not acquainted with:

OF ANCIENT & MODERN CONFEDERACIES by James Madison.

OF ANCIENT & MODERN CONFEDERACIES
http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1934&chapter=118615&layout=html&Itemid=27

Madison destroys Rothbard's thesis.

Also, Rothbard is using the arguments of one of the worst liberal historians in history, Charles Beard, who in 1913 wrote:

An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of The United States (Paperback)
by Charles A. Beard
http://www.amazon.com/Economic-Interpretation-Constitution-United-States/dp/0029024803

Modern socialism uses Beard's thesis to portray the Founding Fathers as just another bunch of rich white guys with no principles except their own personal monetary gain.

Beard's book has been widely influenial for the past 100 years. Even so-called free market advocate Rothbard uses it.

The fact is, James Madison had no peer when it came to his knowledge and analysis of history.

[Galileo Galilei]

George was a FEDERALIST TOO!! DUH!!! :rolleyes: As was John Adams ( Ron's favorite FF, BTW ). ;)

Washington has 22 votes in our poll, Hamilton none.

Washington was not the only founding father to buy into Hamilton's monetary policies, and disregard James Madison.

You can find a list of the First Congress here.

A majority of these lesser founding fathers voted with Hamilton and Washington and agsinst Madison and Jefferson:

1st United States Congress
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_United_States_Congress

[Truth Warrior]

Rothbard is not acquainted with:

OF ANCIENT & MODERN CONFEDERACIES by James Madison.

OF ANCIENT & MODERN CONFEDERACIES
http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1934&chapter=118615&layout=html&Itemid=27

Madison destroys Rothbard's thesis.

Also, Rothbard is using the arguments of one of the worst liberal historians in history, Charles Beard, who in 1913 wrote:

An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of The United States (Paperback)
by Charles A. Beard
http://www.amazon.com/Economic-Interpretation-Constitution-United-States/dp/0029024803

Modern socialism uses Beard's thesis to portray the Founding Fathers as just another bunch of rich white guys with no principles except their own personal monetary gain.

Beard's book has been widely influenial for the past 100 years. Even so-called free market advocate Rothbard uses it.

The fact is, James Madison had no peer when it came to his knowledge and analysis of history.

Murray was an Austrian, von Mises was an Austrian, Hayek was an Austrian, Lew is an Austrian, Ron is an Austrian, I am an Austrian, you are a ______________________???????

[Galileo Galilei]

Quit now, the hole is already too deep for you. You are flip flopping. I guess you are not riding with Jefferson now.



I originally cited Jefferson's deeds and you said.



Subsequently, it was obvious you then wanted to talk about words, not deeds as you now claim.



I then provided an excerpt from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to John Dickinson, August 9, 1803 and a whole book on the topic.

"But there is a difficulty in this acquisition which presents a handle to the malcontents among us, though they have not yet discovered it. Our confederation is certainly confined to limits established by the revolution. The general government has no powers but such as the constitution has given it; and it has not given it a power of holding foreign territory, and still less of incorporating it into the Union..."

I also gave you another Thomas Jefferson quote:
“The less we say about the constitutional difficulties respecting Louisiana the better,” he told Madison. “What is necessary for surmounting them must be done sub-silentio.” - Thomas Jefferson

Go buy your own copy of Thomas Jefferson letters because not all of them are available for free online. It is available for sale online. But do not say something stupid like I have not cited anything specific from Jefferson.

I am now going to provide you another freebie to a work written by John Woo. Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley School of Law.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1133649

Surprisingly, the Constitution has no express provision providing for the
addition of territory. Article IV, section 3 gives Congress the power to
“dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the
Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.”92 Some argue that
this Clause assumes the addition of new property in the future, but as Gary
Lawson and Guy Seidman point out, this interpretation runs counter to the text
of the Clause and its placement in the Constitution.93 It describes the power to
make rules and dispose of property, but it does not empower the government to
add new territory in the first place. It could be read to apply only to the
territory of the United States as it existed in 1789, such as the Northwest
Territory.94

Jefferson also doubted whether new territory, even if added, could become
States.95 The Constitution provides for the addition of new States, upon the
approval of Congress, and it prohibits the formation of new States from
existing States without their consent. Jefferson apparently worried that this
provision applied only to existing states. His attorney general, Levi Lincoln,
advised that the boundaries of existing states be enlarged first to include the
Louisiana Purchase because of this understanding.96 As Lawson and Seidman
argue, the Admissions Clause,97 as it is known, is the most likely ground for
the constitutionality of the Louisiana Purchase.98 It places limitations on the
creation of states from existing states, but it places no restriction on the
creation of states from anything else, such as new territory. It merely declares
that “[n]ew states may be admitted by the Congress into this Union.”99
Jefferson and his cabinet, however, sought refuge in a position that was
“virtually indistinguishable” from Hamilton’s arguments in the debates over
the Neutrality Proclamation and the Jay Treaty.100 Gallatin argued that:

1st. That the United States as a nation have an inherent right to acquire
territory.
2d. That whenever that acquisition is by treaty, the same constituted
authorities in whom the treaty-making power is vested have a
constitutional right to sanction the acquisition.
3d. That whenever the territory has been acquired, Congress have the
power either of admitting into the Union as a new state, or of annexing to a State with the consent of that State, or of making regulations for the
government of such territory.

In other words, the federal government had powers that included the
sovereign rights held by all other nations, even if they were not explicitly set
out in the Constitution. Gallatin claimed, as had Hamilton, that the treaty
power vested the national government with the ability to exercise these
inherent national powers. Gallatin’s opinion concluded that the people had
implicitly delegated to the national government the authority to acquire
territory by vesting it with the powers to make war and treaties, and to govern
the territories. This is a broad reading of the executive power because it would
allow the President and Senate together to exercise power that is nowhere set
out in the Constitution, but must be deduced by examining the rights of other
nations in their international affairs. As the primary force in treaty-making,
this power would benefit the President.

This was strong drink for a man who believed the Constitution did not allow
a national bank. Nevertheless, Jefferson accepted Gallatin’s reasoning, though
he predicted that new territory would enter the Union as a matter of
“expediency” rather than constitutional principle.102 Perhaps he felt he was
making a small compromise when only New Orleans was on the table. When
Jefferson learned that Livingston and Monroe had succeeded beyond his
wildest dreams, he could not escape his constitutional quandary. To John
Dickinson, he admitted that “[o]ur confederation is certainly confined to the
limits established by the revolution. The general government has no powers
but such as the constitution has given it; and it has not given it a power of
holding foreign territory, & still less of incorporating it into the Union.”103 He
confessed that “[a]n amendment to the Constitution seems necessary for
this.”104 Jefferson did not limit himself to private letters to friends, but
expressed his views to his close ally in the Senate, John Breckinridge of
Kentucky, in August of that year: “The Executive in seizing the fugitive
occurrence which so much advances the good of the country, have done an act
beyond the Constitution.”

Jefferson exercised broad powers. It is not in question, it is a historical fact. Just the very phrase "broad exercise of power" runs afoul with a constitution that enumerates powers in order to restrict the power of government.

If you support a broad exercise of power why do you support Ron Paul?

You're ignoring the fact the the Constitution authorizes treaties with foreign nations. James Monroe and Robert Livingston, under the direction of Secretary of State James Madison, negotiated a treaty with France.

Then the Senate ratified the treaty by over 2/3rds.

Negotiating a treaty regarding the ownership of land is not a broad power as you claim. It is a routine power of treaty making going back to the ancient Greeks.

Why are you quoting John Woo, the man who thinks its OK to torture people?

[Galileo Galilei]

Murray was an Austrian, von Mises was an Austrian, Hayek was an Austrian, Lew is an Austrian, Ron is an Austrian, I am an Austrian, you are a ______________________???????

I'm a big backer of Hayek, Di Lorenzo, and Ron Paul.

Rothbard and von Mises are provocative who do more good than harm, but a lot of their stuff is way off the mark.

[Truth Warrior]

I'm a big backer of Hayek, Di Lorenzo, and Ron Paul.

Rothbard and von Mises are provocative who do more good than harm, but a lot of their stuff is way off the mark.

Ron Paul: A Most Unusual Politician (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard187.html)
Murray N. Rothbard on the moral, principled voice in the District of Criminals.

[Galileo Galilei]

Ron Paul: A Most Unusual Politician (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard187.html)
Murray N. Rothbard on the moral, principled voice in the District of Criminals.

On balance, I like Rothbard. I just think he's off the mark on a lot of stuff.

Ron Paul, on the other hand, has found a way to balance theory with reality.

[Truth Warrior]

On balance, I like Rothbard. I just think he's off the mark on a lot of stuff.

Ron Paul, on the other hand, has found a way to balance theory with reality. How is Ron doing that? I'd say he's mainly talking Austrian. < LOL! >

"Freedom, Peace and Prosperity" -- Ron Paul

[Young Paleocon]

I'm a big backer of Hayek, Di Lorenzo, and Ron Paul.

Rothbard and von Mises are provocative who do more good than harm, but a lot of their stuff is way off the mark.

To me Mises has always seemed pretty measured and realistic.

[DeadheadForPaul]

Thomas Jefferson is my #1.
#2 - Patrick Henry.
#3 - Thomas Paine

The worst 2 on the list are Alexander Hamilton (enemy of liberty) and Sam Adams (epitomized 'the rabble')

[Galileo Galilei]

How is Ron doing that? I'd say he's mainly talking Austrian. < LOL! >

"Freedom, Peace and Prosperity" -- Ron Paul

Ron Paul votes against any bill that is not authorized by the US Constitution. He also advcates free market economics.

[Young Paleocon]

I voted for Jefferson and Henry for a number of reasons, but I wonder if Jefferson's ideas on planned society has any impact on how forum goers view him?

[Truth Warrior]

Ron Paul votes against any bill that is not authorized by the US Constitution. He also advcates free market economics. Yep, that's why they call him Dr. NO. :)

Articles by Ron Paul (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/#art2)

"Visit LewRockwell.com, an outstanding and crucially important Web site I visit every day." -- Ron Paul.
"THE REVOLUTION, A MANIFESTO" ( page # 158 ), http://www.lewrockwell.com/ (http://www.lewrockwell.com/) ;)

[Truth Warrior]

I voted for Jefferson and Henry for a number of reasons, but I wonder if Jefferson's ideas on planned society has any impact on how forum goers view him?

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.
Thomas Jefferson (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/thomas_jefferson.html)

[Galileo Galilei]

I voted for Jefferson and Henry for a number of reasons, but I wonder if Jefferson's ideas on planned society has any impact on how forum goers view him?

I'm not aware of any at the federal level.

He did site on his tombstone, as one of his three greatest achievements, the creation of the University of Virginia.

[Truth Warrior]

I'm not aware of any at the federal level.

He did site on his tombstone, as one of his three greatest achievements, the creation of the University of Virginia. Left off POTUS didn't he? :D

[Pennsylvania]

How did so many people vote for a man who wanted to castrate homosexuals? Come on guys, I thought we just had this discussion.

[Truth Warrior]

How did so many people vote for a man who wanted to castrate homosexuals? Come on guys, I thought we just had this discussion. Source?

[Pennsylvania]

Source?

The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew A. Lipscomb, ed. (Washington, Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904) Vol. I, pp.226-27, from Jefferson's "For Proportioning Crimes and Punishments."

I stand slightly corrected. It was all sodomites, rather than only homosexuals:


Sodomy(2) with man or woman, shall be punished, if a man, by

castration,(3) if a woman, by cutting through the cartilage of her nose a hole

of one half inch in diameter at the least.

[Truth Warrior]

The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew A. Lipscomb, ed. (Washington, Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904) Vol. I, pp.226-27, from Jefferson's "For Proportioning Crimes and Punishments."

I stand slightly corrected. It was all sodomites, rather that only homosexuals: Well he owned some slaves too. :( An institution from the Brits. :p

Thanks! :)

[Galileo Galilei]

The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew A. Lipscomb, ed. (Washington, Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904) Vol. I, pp.226-27, from Jefferson's "For Proportioning Crimes and Punishments."

I stand slightly corrected. It was all sodomites, rather that only homosexuals:

I find this hard to believe. I'd like to see the context, or if this were already in some legal code prior to Jefferson. These penalties may actually have been reduced penalties from prior codes, which might have been death.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Kludge]

Can I claim Protestant trailblazers as Founders?

I'm fond of George Fox....

[ItsTime]

Without one of them, this all may have never happened. The mix of people coming together is what brought us here. Much like the CFL bringing greens and libertarians together for a common goal.

[heavenlyboy34]

Well he owned some slaves too. :( An institution from the Brits. :p

Thanks! :)

Last I checked, he inherited those slaves-and released them ASAP. ;):D:)

[Truth Warrior]

Last I checked, he inherited those slaves-and released them ASAP. ;):D:) Check again. It was AFTER his death, as I seem to recall. :(

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Truth Warrior]

Quote Prediction :D

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sensei (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sensei)

[heavenlyboy34]

Quote Prediction :D

lolz.... :rolleyes: silly kid.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Truth Warrior]

You two crack me up. :p We crack us up too. :D

[heavenlyboy34]

We crack us up too. :D

+a zillion! RPF is very blessed to have TW and I grace it with our presence and brilliant humor/commentary. ;):D:)

[heavenlyboy34]

Check again. It was AFTER his death, as I seem to recall. :(


I guess we're both right (you more so than I this time).

http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/Slaves_Who_Gained_Freedom

Jefferson (http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/Thomas_Jefferson) had a number of slaves who gained their freedom[1] (http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/Slaves_Who_Gained_Freedom#_note-0) by various methods. He freed two slaves in his lifetime and five in his will. Three others ran away and were not pursued. (Still others successfully ran away despite pursuit.)
All ten freed with Jefferson's consent were members of the Hemings family; the seven he officially freed were all skilled tradesmen. About 200 slaves were sold at estate sales after Jefferson's death.

[Truth Warrior]

I guess we're both right (you more so than I this time).

http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/Slaves_Who_Gained_Freedom

Jefferson (http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/Thomas_Jefferson) had a number of slaves who gained their freedom[1] (http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/Slaves_Who_Gained_Freedom#_note-0) by various methods. He freed two slaves in his lifetime and five in his will. Three others ran away and were not pursued. (Still others successfully ran away despite pursuit.)
All ten freed with Jefferson's consent were members of the Hemings family; the seven he officially freed were all skilled tradesmen. About 200 slaves were sold at estate sales after Jefferson's death.

That works. ;)

Thanks! :)

[Galileo Galilei]

You keep bringing this up. By your standards it would appear a treaty to become a gun free world would be lawful. The constitution is the supreme law of the land. Treaty law is not supposed to exceed the constitution.

It has already been pointed out that Article 4, Section 3 enumerates powers to government regarding territories. Acquisition is not one of them. Even John Woo, "the man who thinks its OK to torture people", wrote the power is not in the constitution. Are you suggesting the founders did not know what they were doing and just forgot to include acquisition along with the powers enumerated for territories? I seriously doubt Jefferson swallowed any "strong drink" as John Woo suggested. I am quite confident Jefferson was very aware not only was the power not in the constitution, but that a treaty can not supersede the constitution. See the highlighted bold section below. That is likely the reason he would have preferred a constitutional amendment.

I am not sure what is more ironic. That you criticized my citation of Woo. Or that you agree with the unenumerated powers contained in this premise included in his writing.



How many times does the word treaty appear in that statement? It is about the constitutional power government has because the government can only create treaty law within the limits of its constitutional power. Unfortunately the Supreme Court is partially to blame for unconstitutional treaty law because it has upheld power government asserts that is not enumerated in the constitution and has not done a good job upholding limits to the treaty power with regards for power reserved to the states.

It was broad exercise of power. The Louisiana Purchase was unconstitutional treaty law in as much as it was unconstitutional on its face.

Another freebie excerpt:

Article IV:

"Section 3 - New States

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."

The Constitution says nothing specific about how to add new land, except only some restrictions on how to add new states. The Louisiana Purchase added no new states.

That's because new land has always been added throughout history by treaty. The Constitution does not enumerate the specific powers of treaty because it was part of the International common Law at the time, and still is.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[A. Havnes]

It's a toss up between Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson.

[Galileo Galilei]

One small step for man, one giant step for....

Article I - The Legislative Branch
Section 1 - The Legislature

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.



So the founding fathers just forgot to include it and the American Revolution was fought to maintain the status quo?

We're the founding fathers denouncing taxation without representation in one hand and conspiring to give this power to government with the other?

According to you... they must have.

The Founding fathers forgot to put anything specific into the Constitution regarding adding new land. Typically, new land is agreed to by treaty at the end of a war, like the Treaty of Paris.

Adding new land is not a legislative function, it falls under the jurisdiction of treaty making.

After the land is added, then congress can legislate it.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Galileo Galilei]

The presidents power, by and with the advice of the senate to make treaties law is limited by powers granted to the government in the constitution. Not the international status quo.

Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

It is wrong to interpret the constitution in a manner that grants government power not delegated to government.

Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Do you know more than the founding fathers did to be able to suggest they forgot something?

I seem to recall you criticizing Lew Rockwell and/or others earlier for the exact same thing.

Below are a couple small excerpts from notes on the debates in the federal convention.


-But as the present situation of the States may probably alter in the number of their inhabitants, the Legislature of the U. S. shall be authorized from time to time to apportion the number of Reps.; and in case any of the States shall hereafter be divided, or enlarged by, addition of territory, or any two or more States united, or any new States created with [FN3] the limits of the U. S. the Legislature of the U. S. shall possess authority to regulate the number of Reps. in any of the foregoing cases, upon the principle of their number of inhabitants, according to the provisions hereafter mentioned, namely [FN4]- provided always that representation ought to be proportioned according to direct taxation; and in order to ascertain the alteration in the direct taxation, which may be required from time to time by the changes in the relative circumstances of the States-

Sect. 3. All controversies concerning lands claimed under different grants of two or more States, whose jurisdictions, as they respect such lands shall have been decided or adjusted subsequent [FN10] to such grants, or any of them, shall, on application to the Senate, be finally determined, as near as may be, in the same manner as is before prescribed for deciding controversies between different States.
[/B]

Mr. MERCER should hereafter be agst. returning to a reconsideration of this section. He contended, (alluding to Mr. Mason's observations) that the Senate ought not to have the power of treaties. This power belonged to the Executive department; adding that Treaties would not be final so as to alter the laws of the land, till ratified by legislative authority. This was the case of Treaties in Great Britain; particularly the late Treaty of Commerce with France.

Col. MASON. did not say that a Treaty would repeal a law; but that the Senate by means of treaty [FN4] might alienate territory &c, without legislative sanction. The cessions of the British Islands in [FN5] W. Indies by Treaty alone were an example. If Spain should possess herself of Georgia therefore the Senate might by treaty dismember the Union. He wished the motion to be decided now, that the friends of it might know how to conduct themselves.

On [FN5] question for postponing Sec: 12. it passed in the affirmative.

N. H. ay. Mas. ay Ct. no. N. J. no Pena. no. Del. no Maryd. no. Va. ay. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay. - [FN6]

Mr. MADISON moved that all acts before they become laws should be submitted both to the Executive and Supreme Judiciary Departments, that if either of these should object 2/3 of each House, if both should object, 3/4 of each House, should be necessary to overrule the objections and give to the acts the force of law- [FN7]

Mr. L. MARTIN, urged the unreasonableness of forcing & guaranteeing the people of Virginia beyond the Mountains, the Western people, of N. Carolina, & of Georgia, & the people of Maine, to continue under the States now governing them, without the consent of those States to their separation. Even if they should become the majority, the majority of Counties, as in Virginia may still hold fast the dominion over them. Again the majority may place the seat of Government entirely among themselves & for their own conveniency, [FN12] and still keep the injured parts of the States in subjection, under the guarantee of the Genl. Government agst. domestic violence. He wished Mr. Wilson had thought a little sooner of the value of political bodies. In the beginning, when the rights of the small States were in question, they were phantoms, ideal beings. Now when the Great States were to be affected, political societies were of a sacred nature. He repeated and enlarged on the unreasonableness of requiring the small States to guarantee the Western claims of the large ones. -It was said yesterday by Mr. Govr. Morris, that if the large States were to be split to pieces without their consent, their representatives here would take their leave. If the Small States are to be required to guarantee them in this manner, it will be found that the Representatives of other States will with equal firmness take their leave of the Constitution on the table.

It was moved by Mr. L. MARTIN to postpone the substituted article, in order to take up the following. "The Legislature of the U. S. shall have power to erect New States within as well as without the territory claimed by the several States or either of them, and admit the same into the Union: provided that nothing in this constitution shall be construed to affect the claim of the U. S. to vacant lands ceded to them by the late treaty of peace. which passed in the negative: N. J. Del. & Md. only ay.

On the question to agree to Mr. Govr. Morris's substituted article as amended in the words following,

"New States may be admitted by the Legislature into the Union: but no new State shall be hereafter formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any of the present States without the consent of the Legislature of such State as well as of the General Legislature"

N. H. ay. Mas. ay. Ct. ay. N. J. no. Pa. ay. Del. no. Md. no. Va. ay. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay. [FN13]

Mr. DICKINSON moved to add the following clause to the last- "Nor shall any State be formed by the junction of two or more States or parts thereof, without the consent of the Legislatures of such States, as well as of the Legislature of the U. States." which was agreed to without a count of the votes.

Mr. CARROL moved to add-"Provided nevertheless that nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to affect the claim of the U. S. to vacant lands ceded to them by the Treaty of peace." This he said might be understood as relating to lands not claimed by any particular States, but he had in view also some of the claims of particular States.

Mr. WILSON was agst. the motion. There was nothing in the Constitution affecting one way or the other the claims of the U. S. & it was best to insert nothing leaving every thing on that litigated subject in statu quo.

Mr. MADISON considered the claim of the U. S. as in fact favored by the jurisdiction of the judicial power of the U. S. over controversies to which they whould be parties. He thought it best on the whole to be silent on the subject. He did not view the proviso of Mr. Carrol as dangerous; but to make it neutral & fair, it ought to go farther & declare that the claims of particular States also should not be affected.

Mr. SHERMAN thought the proviso harmless, especially with the addition suggested by Mr. Madison in favor of the claims of particular States.

Mr. BALDWIN did not wish any undue advantage to be given to Georgia. He thought the proviso proper with the addition proposed. It should be remembered that if Georgia has gained much by the cession in the Treaty of peace, she was in danger during the war, of a Uti possidetis.

Mr. RUTLIDGE thought it wrong to insert a proviso where there was nothing which it could restrain, or on which it could operate.

Mr. CARROL withdrew his motion and moved the following. "Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to alter the claims of the U. S. or of the individual States to the Western territory, but all such claims shall be examined into & decided upon, by the Supreme Court of the U. States."

Mr. Govr. MORRIS moved to postpone this in order to take up the following.

"The Legislature shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the U. States; and nothing in this constitution contained, shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims either of the U. S. or of any particular State." -The postponemt. agd. to nem. con.

Mr. L. MARTIN moved to amend the proposition of Mr. Govr. Morris by adding- "But all such claims may be examined into & decided upon by the supreme Court of the U. States."

Mr. Govr. MORRIS. this is unnecessary, as all suits to which the U. S. are parties, are already to be decided by the Supreme Court.

Mr. L. MARTIN, it is propor in order to remove all doubts on this point.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp

I do not think they forgot anything as you suggest. Nor do I subscribe to the treaty making power void of legislative authority.

This is interesting reading.

However, the power to make treaties WAS delegated; to the president and the senate.

[HenryKnoxFineBooks]

My wife wanted to vote for Richard Henry Lee, which was not on the list.


Granted, she is voting mostly on the basis of the Musical 1776.

[jlott00]

alex hamilton is the reason there was a hole in the constitution so that the fed could be established

[He Who Pawns]

Lol someone voted for Hamilton.

[ClayTrainor]

Lol someone voted for Hamilton.

haha... dammit.

It was bound to happen eventually. We maintained a 0 for quite some time :cool:

[Xenophage]

Jefferson and Paine.

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm liking Ben Franklin the more I read about him, but he's not my fave at the moment.

"Gentlemen [of the Constitutional convention] you see that in the anarchy in which we live, society manages much as before. Take care, if our disputes last too long, that the people will come to think they can just as easily do without us."

~ Benjamin Franklin, quoted in Rebirth of Liberty, Carl Watner, 11 July 2005
:D:cool:

[Arklatex]

Even though me and Ben Franklin share birthdays I jave to go with Thomas Jefferson. I think he was right about the whole agrarian society thing.

[erowe1]

Jonathan Edwards.

[Paulitical Correctness]

loltruthwarrior.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Thomas Jefferson and George Mason by far.

[rprprs]

Let's get real. How important can ANY of these guys have been??!! I mean, as far as I can determine, not one of them ever won the NOBEL prize!

So there you have it.:D

[RedStripe]

Alright - who voted for Hamilton?

[Imperial]

Alright - who voted for Hamilton?

I have a friend who is a Hamiltonian libertarian. Seems like a contradictory position, but I can see it. He makes it make sense.


I'm liking Ben Franklin the more I read about him, but he's not my fave at the moment.

Ben Franklin was pretty statist, but he had the best insight I think into how things work. He recognized the Constitution would fail just as any other government would.

I voted for Paine, Madison, and Franklin.

[Galileo Galilei]

James Madison was the most powerful Founding Father. He was pretty much the brains behind the operation.

[Galileo Galilei]

Alright - who voted for Hamilton?

There are a lot of people who know Hamilton purely from the Federalist Papers.

This includes those in law school, who study the Federalist Papers, but hear nothing of Hamilton's banking policies.

The ratio of people who read the Federalist Papers to those who read Hamilton's Report on Manufacters, is probably a thousand to one.

Also, if you read the Federalist Papers, it is easy to confuse what Hamilton wrote, and maybe several years later think Hamilton wrote something that Madison did.

Hamilton was also one of the few Founding Fathers to fight in the front lines and expose himself to gunfire in the Revolution. He wrote many solid patriotic pamplets and letters during the Revolution.

He helped expose the Newburg Conspiracy.

He also has the personally heroic story of rising from nowhere, with no parents, in the middle of the ocean, to make something of his life, learn ancient Greek and Latin when he was 10 years old.

He also helped Jefferson get elected president in 1800.

He helped organize the Constitutional Conventional and helped get it ratified in New York.

Hamilton is accused of flip-flopping, but other Founding Fathers did as well. For example, George Clinton, the enemy of Hamilton and the Constitution, later became Vice-president! So did Elbridge Gerry. Even Patrick Henry agreed to run for federal office.

So, no, I am not a Hamilton fan, I wouldn't vote for him in this poll, but Hamilton's positives outweigh his negatives.

[RedStripe]

There are a lot of people who know Hamilton purely from the Federalist Papers.

This includes those in law school, who study the Federalist Papers, but hear nothing of Hamilton's banking policies.

The ratio of people who read the Federalist Papers to those who read Hamilton's Report on Manufacters, is probably a thousand to one.

Also, if you read the Federalist Papers, it is easy to confuse what Hamilton wrote, and maybe several years later think Hamilton wrote something that Madison did.

Hamilton was also one of the few Founding Fathers to fight in the front lines and expose himself to gunfire in the Revolution. He wrote many solid patriotic pamplets and letters during the Revolution.

He helped expose the Newburg Conspiracy.

He also has the personally heroic story of rising from nowhere, with no parents, in the middle of the ocean, to make something of his life, learn ancient Greek and Latin when he was 10 years old.

He also helped Jefferson get elected president in 1800.

He helped organize the Constitutional Conventional and helped get it ratified in New York.

Hamilton is accused of flip-flopping, but other Founding Fathers did as well. For example, George Clinton, the enemy of Hamilton and the Constitution, later became Vice-president! So did Elbridge Gerry. Even Patrick Henry agreed to run for federal office.

So, no, I am not a Hamilton fan, I wouldn't vote for him in this poll, but Hamilton's positives outweigh his negatives.

Yea, I'm not saying he didn't do a lot to end British tyranny in the United States, or that he a completely terrible person relative to the others, but he definitely seems like one of the weakest choices to me.

[Number19]

James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Thomas Paine, Ben Franklin.This I can agree with. I'll add only one comment, in support of Paine. Washington won the Revolution with the sword. Tom Paine won the Revolution with the pen.

[LibertyEagle]

This is a good book.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51i-Wye3UxL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA240_SH20_OU01_.jpg

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1596980923/ref=ox_ya_oh_product

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

No love for George Mason. He was as fiery, as "radical", and as "voluntaryist", as Jefferson. Of course, two Virginians are the most relished (At least to me). Throw in Robert E. Lee, and you have a veritable tri-fecta. Goddamn, what happened to Virginia :(

[WarDog]

Unfortunately they were all Masons we have been hood winked about the whole thing. What am saying is this whole founding of America was an inside job can you see this?.
http://vigilantcitizen.com/

http://www.freemantv.com/

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...emason_sig.htm

If you don't know about Freemasonry your wasting your time to bring about political change. This whole thing we call reality is built by them yes even the founders were Masons so everything is off the table until we understand there religion of there sun god Ra. just like the Boston tea party was an inside job 1776 was an inside job.

This is a nation of dissenters who do you kill first in war?. Obama is lighting from heaven he is also called "code name "Renegade". Meaning 1 : a deserter from one faith, cause, or allegiance to another
2 : an individual who rejects lawful or conventional behavior

Obama comes to us as the Messiah he also is taking the healthcare in the Middle of a false flag flu virus as did the Pharaoh of Egypt named Akhenaten. Folks we are following there script of destruction please watch the Freeman tv and see for yourselves. This also goes for Glen Beck look at his symbol

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Unfortunately they were all Masons we have been hood winked about the whole thing. What am saying is this whole founding of America was an inside job can you see this?.
http://vigilantcitizen.com/

http://www.freemantv.com/

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...emason_sig.htm

If you don't know about Freemasonry your wasting your time to bring about political change. This whole thing we call reality is built by them yes even the founders were Masons so everything is off the table until we understand there religion of there sun god Ra. just like the Boston tea party was an inside job 1776 was an inside job.

This is a nation of dissenters who do you kill first in war?. Obama is lighting from heaven he is also called "code name "Renegade". Meaning 1 : a deserter from one faith, cause, or allegiance to another
2 : an individual who rejects lawful or conventional behavior

Obama comes to us as the Messiah he also is taking the healthcare in the Middle of a false flag flu virus as did the Pharaoh of Egypt named Akhenaten. Folks we are following there script of destruction please watch the Freeman tv and see for yourselves. This also goes for Glen Beck look at his symbol

Obama cloning and the space war. :D:D

We do seem to attract everyone across the spectrum.

[YumYum]

Aaron Burr shot Hamilton. Why isn't his name on the list? Doesn't that count for anything with the Hamilton haters?

[Galileo Galilei]

Unfortunately they were all Masons we have been hood winked about the whole thing. What am saying is this whole founding of America was an inside job can you see this?.
http://vigilantcitizen.com/

http://www.freemantv.com/

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...emason_sig.htm

If you don't know about Freemasonry your wasting your time to bring about political change. This whole thing we call reality is built by them yes even the founders were Masons so everything is off the table until we understand there religion of there sun god Ra. just like the Boston tea party was an inside job 1776 was an inside job.

This is a nation of dissenters who do you kill first in war?. Obama is lighting from heaven he is also called "code name "Renegade". Meaning 1 : a deserter from one faith, cause, or allegiance to another
2 : an individual who rejects lawful or conventional behavior

Obama comes to us as the Messiah he also is taking the healthcare in the Middle of a false flag flu virus as did the Pharaoh of Egypt named Akhenaten. Folks we are following there script of destruction please watch the Freeman tv and see for yourselves. This also goes for Glen Beck look at his symbol

James Madison wasn't a freemason. He didn't believe in that crap.

[Stary Hickory]

Good Ol TJ

Man is a saint in my book, a flawed saint but a saint never the less.

[Galileo Galilei]

Aaron Burr shot Hamilton. Why isn't his name on the list? Doesn't that count for anything with the Hamilton haters?

Burr was not a Founding Father. His collected writings are devoid of any political thoughts whatsoever. Ever seen a Burr quote? I haven't.

At the time of Hamilton's death, he had already fallen from power anyway. And given how long the Virginia dynasty stayed in power, his future wasn't too bright. His personal popularity was on the downswing as well in 1804.

The only president who might have welcomed Hamilton into his cabinet during Hamilton's expected life was the short term of John Quincy Adams. Andrew Jackson would not have taken him either. Maybe martin van Buren would, but by 1837, Hamilton would have been 80 years old. Even when JQ Adams was president he would have been pushing 70.

Hamilton's only political accomplishment after he left Washington's cabinet (after the Whisley Rebellion) was to help Jefferson get elected in 1800.

Burr was basically scum, the Bill Clinton of the Founding Fathers.

Hmailton, while I disagree with him on several issues, was looked upon as an honest patriot by his peers.

[Brett]

Aaron Burr shot Hamilton. Why isn't his name on the list? Doesn't that count for anything with the Hamilton haters?

I got a book called "Fallen Father" that's about how Burr's life is completely erased from the minds of nearly everyone. It's a good read.

As for my vote; I went Patrick Henry and George Mason. Yay Anti-federalists.

[erowe1]

Yum Yum's argument for including Burr makes sense to me. I don't see why he shouldn't count as a founding father. And this is a poll, so the point is to get people's views, not give them what their views are supposed to be. Right? (Yeah, I know, what I just described is the opposite of how polls are usually used in the real world.) And I actually saw a Republican friend of mine say to another guy on Facebook who had accused him of liking Lincoln too much, "Hey, I'm the guy who thinks that Lincoln Day dinners should be changed to Aaron Burr day dinners." I can only assume that his reasoning was because of the service Burr did in eliminating Hamilton. But I didn't ask.

[Galileo Galilei]

I got a book called "Fallen Father" that's about how Burr's life is completely erased from the minds of nearly everyone. It's a good read.

As for my vote; I went Patrick Henry and George Mason. Yay Anti-federalists.

I've seen that book, is it any good? Is Gordon Wood mentioned or cited in it?

FYI

Mason is called an anti-Federalist, but he went to the Convention in favor of the Virginia Plan. He refused to sign because he did not like how the Senate was composed, not giving Virginia proportional representation, and also because the lack of a Bill-of-Rights. Of course, the Bill-of-Rights was added just before Mason's death. Mason died in 1792.

Also, in 1799, Patrick Henry shed his anti-Federalist lenaings and decided to run for federal office. But he died before the election was held.

[Brett]

I've seen that book, is it any good? Is Gordon Wood mentioned or cited in it?

I found it good. Gordon Wood isn't in the index, but very well may be in it. I don't recall specifics to that extent.


Mason is called an anti-Federalist, but he went to the Convention in favor of the Virginia Plan. He refused to sign because he did not like how the Senate was composed, not giving Virginia proportional representation, and also because the lack of a Bill-of-Rights. Of course, the Bill-of-Rights was added just before Mason's death. Mason died in 1792.

Odd, my public school teacher didn't tell me any of that, and I "was" George Mason in our mock Constitutional Convention. Go figure :p


Also, in 1799, Patrick Henry shed his anti-Federalist lenaings and decided to run for federal office. But he died before the election was held.

Another surprise, never learned that either. :rolleyes:

Note to self: Get the book LE posted.

[Galileo Galilei]

I found it good. Gordon Wood isn't in the index, but very well may be in it. I don't recall specifics to that extent.



Odd, my public school teacher didn't tell me any of that, and I "was" George Mason in our mock Constitutional Convention. Go figure :p



Another surprise, never learned that either. :rolleyes:

Note to self: Get the book LE posted.

I've seen the book Fallen Founder, and browsed through it. It seems the book basically claimed that Burr was not as bad as usually claimed. I think the book is just to fill a niche, there are hundreds of books on the Founding Fathers written every year, so someone was bound to write one on Burr.

Gordon Wood says in his book Revolutionary Characters, that Burr never once wrote a coherent political thought in all of his collected letters and writings.