Few Historical Questions?

[Patriot123]

So, to jump right into this... I began to get heavily interested in history when I was twelve or thirteen or so, and began to get interested in the freedom movement and the history to go with it - and since, I've taken classes at my high school that have contradicted everything I thought I knew, but more importantly everything the 'freedom movement,' 'Ron Paul movement' has taught me historically wise. Or at least that's how I feel. So I have a few questions for anyone who's up to answering them - or statements, actually. If anyone could read these over and try to refute them, please do. I feel as though everything I've learned is just wrong, and that this entire movements philosophy is warped. I'm hoping it's not, and that the classes I have taken are just slanted liberally. So thanks to those who do try to refute these points.

A. Thomas Jefferson is almost always, in the freedom movement, regarded as the "savior of the Constitution," and the role model of what a president had aught' to be. However, Thomas Jefferson infringed upon his principles of a strict interpretation of the Constitution during the Louisiana Purchase, and also wound up - in the end, being more Federalist than Democratic-Republican. In the end, his presidency was more or less based on Federalist stances. He also kept the first Bank of the United States, an institution which he hated, as did his vice president, James Madison, when he became president. Thomas Jefferson is continuously quoted on this forum, and continuously looked up to. Why is it that Thomas Jefferson is seen as the savior of the Constitution, and the 'greatest man' in American history in this movement, when in reality he is an awful example and role model of our movement? He contradicted himself dozens of times, and contradicted his entire philosophy and principles during his presidency. He more or less acted like a Federalist. His past life may reflect well and be a good example, but his entire presidency was more or less based on Federalist principles after the Louisiana Purchase.

B. The founders - or framers, rather, really weren't 'amazing men who all wanted to keep to the principles of liberty, and all wanted to create a government that was restrained, and give Americans rights and liberties.' People time and time again on this forum and in this movement have made the framers out to be these men who would never have wanted a big government, who could do no wrong, and who constructed the Constitution with these principles of liberty in mind, who wanted to have absolutely no tyranny, and give Americans these awesome and amazing rights, and this solid Constitution that would restrain the federal government.
Skipping a paragraph to make this read a bit easier - with that said... Many of the people at the Constitutional Convention really seem like they wanted to just play politics to get things passed. The Three Fifths Compromise, for example. Or the compromise to make the Congress have two houses [drawing a blank...] Alexander Hamilton and many others like him were big government politicians who only wanted to increase the size of the federal government. They are not role models for our movement, and thus not all the founding fathers held the opinions our movement holds. Time and time again it is said, or at least implied that all the founding fathers held just that - these ideas of liberty and small government. Even George Washington didn't hold our views - he commonly agreed with Alexander Hamilton - most notably on the first Bank of the United States, and held a loose interpretation of the Constitution. Not all the founding fathers would have the same interpretation of the Constitution, either - they each had their own different ideas.
Again, skipping a paragraph to make this read easier as this is a huge point... the founding fathers did not, NOT create the Bill of Rights because they thought 'all Americans should be free and prosperous, and to restrain the federal government from tyranny.' They created it as a political bribe to the states in order to get the Constitution ratified. It was a compromise. They went back and drafted the Bill of Rights after the Constitution because of the bribe they made. So in reality, our Bill of Rights has no, NO meaning other than it being a political bribe to get a big government document passed. The only reason they actually went back and drafted it was because they were at least honorable and kept to their word.

C. "The framers would be rolling in their grave if they saw what was going on today in American politics." This phrase is repeated constantly in this movement. In reality, the politics back then and the way of thinking was more or less the same as it is today. If Alexander Hamilton and many other like Federalists were alive today, they would view the Federal Reserve and the printing of worthless paper money as a great American achievement. They would view big government and regulation as a great American achievement. They would view a loose interpretation of the Constitution as a great American achievement. Is this true, or can this be refuted?

If anyone could refute these points, please do. I'm really hoping I'm wrong. And I'm really hoping someone is intelligent enough to be able to refute all of these. Please don't give me garbage like, "you're being brainwashed by the New World Order" or "Thomas Jefferson was in reality brainwashed by Alexander Hamilton in utmost secrecy to agree to the Louisiana Purchase." Thanks :D And thank you to the person, or persons who respond.

[nate895]

A. He had no power over the first bank, the bank was a privately owned and operated entity with a fixed charter that lasted into Madison's term, Jefferson couldn't have gotten rid of it if he had spent his whole term on it. The Louisiana Purchase is debatable constitutionally, because the President has the power to make treaties and purchasing of land is a common treaty.

B. Some founders had other goals in mind, but most of the ones who were popular then, and remain popular with liberty-minded individuals were small government classical liberals. All the rhetoric that was spewed in favor of the revolution was full of support for liberty, and the people who were the leaders were anti-federalists who had suspicions that many clauses of the Constitution could be abused by those who wanted to in future generations. They, apparently, were right.

BTW, you might be talking about "framers," which is a subset of the group of people known as the "founders." Many founders were not framers, but all framers were founders.

C. Yes, some would view the overall state of America as a great achievement, but the ones Americans like for the most part would be rolling over in their graves. George Washington, while a Federalist, would probably still be offended at our foreign ventures, fiat currency (the first bank still operated on a gold standard), and PATRIOT Act crap. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if Hamilton would think it has gotten out of hand. Most founders and framers would be totally disgusted at the state of America today.

[euphemia]

I just want to point out a couple of things. The Founding Fathers were an amazing and diverse group of men. They did not all agree. None of them really knew what was going to come out of what they were doing. They knew bad govenrment when they saw it, but they were forging new ground with this little Republic. We have to look at what they were doing in the context of when they did it. A representative Republic had never been codified before, not with a Constitution and all.

I'm sure they changed their minds quite a bit. The ideas for a United States of America were brand new.

I'm not trying to prove anything, but I just wanted to say that it was all new to them and I'm sure they all felt like they were in way over their heads. I'm grateful for what they did.

[AuH20]

Well, Jefferson is an easy target to demonize because of the hypocritical nature of many of his positions. Now calling Jefferson "the savior of the constitution" is abit misleading. Madison, given his pivotal role writing a third of the federalist papers and nearly all of the first ten amendments (later known as the bill of rights) is widely considered "the father of the constitution."

Now, in regard to your assertion that the constitution and its bill of rights was constructed as a tool of compromise to appease certain parties, you're absolutely spot on. But this sobering fact does not diminish the wonder of the document. It was intentionally designed to restrain governmental power from being all-corrupting, in that property holders could live their life relatively unmaligned from the grasp of centralized power.

On your last point, point C is erroneous. While being advocates of a relatively strong state, Hamilton and his federalist disciples were deathly afraid of mob rule. They would have never signed onto the new deal and the great society programs, which they would have seen as abominations that unnecessarily stress the treasury and tax system to unfathomable levels.


Oh, if one of your haughty liberal professors starts rail about the government's inherent right to "promote the general welfare" in every conceivable scenario, hit him with this gem. The following quotation is the silver bullet to every quasi-socialist you come across. They loathe James Madison with such passion:

"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” - James Madison

[akihabro]

I would trust what you read yourself and what was told at historic sties. There can be some misconceptions or half truths but still I'm sure less slanted than your high school text book. I think some colleges paint a more truthful picture.
I can't really add to this thread unfortunately because I haven't studied our founding fathers more than the history channel and references from other books. There is a lot of level-headed quotes they have made.

Thanks for being critical because at times we need to look at our own beliefs and what we are spewing out to make sure its true and we are doing what we believe in.

[beerista]

"Jefferson's primary contribution was the central observation of self government that man, as an imperfect being, is not to be trusted with power over others, as embodied in the following, my favorite Jefferson quote:

Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.
Is it therefore surprising that, having made this observation, that he exemplified it in office? If anything, this should be an affirmation of the message of Jefferson, that even he was not capable of living up to his own standards of government."

--and--

"It seems unwise to only take advice from people who are able to live up to their own rhetoric. With very few exceptions, this will have us following the example of people with very low expectations and aspirations. In many cases it will be the seemingly hypocritical alcoholic who, more than anyone, understands the true value of moderation, even if he is unable to implement it.

Man's reach should exceed his grasp, else what's a heaven for."

[...Sorry for the recycling. I'll attempt a more thorough answer later.]

[TastyWheat]

A. I doubly agree with nate's statements on the 1st National Bank. Andrew Jackson, who was greatly opposed to the 2nd National Bank, couldn't abolish it (he would've needed Congressional approval most likely). He did undermine their activities though and refused to sign any extension of the charter. Jefferson's hands were probably tied on the subject.

B. There was a lot of disagreement among the framers. The uniqueness of our federalist system, bicameral legsilature, electoral college, appointed Senators, and Supreme Court are evidence of this fact (many checks and balances). Without some of the compromises and concessions that were made, slavery being the greatest one, we may never have formed our union. If the framers debated until the Constitution was "perfect" I'm sure we'd still be a confederation at best.

C. About the only founder/framer that would be happy with our current state of affairs is Hamilton. If you take his words at face value then he would be very upset with the over-extent of the federal government, but I personally think he was a closet authoritarian (we all know he was a statist).

[hotbrownsauce]

The following principles come from the 5000 year leap. Read the book.


Principle 1 - The only reliable basis for sound government and just human relations is Natural Law.

Natural law is God's law. There are certain laws which govern the entire universe, and just as Thomas Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence, there are laws which govern in the affairs of men which are "the laws of nature and of nature's God."

Principle 2 - A free people cannot survive under a republican constitution unless they remain virtuous and morally strong.

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Benjamin Franklin

Principle 3 - The most promising method of securing a virtuous people is to elect virtuous leaders.

"Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. He therefore is the truest friend to the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who ... will not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man." - Samuel Adams

Principle 4 - Without religion the government of a free people cannot be maintained.

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.... And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion." - George Washington

Principle 5 - All things were created by God, therefore upon him all mankind are equally dependent, and to him they are equally responsible .

The American Founding Fathers considered the existence of the Creator as the most fundamental premise underlying all self-evident truth. They felt a person who boasted he or she was an atheist had just simply failed to apply his or her divine capacity for reason and observation.

Principle 6 - All mankind were created equal.

The Founders knew that in these three ways, all mankind are theoretically treated as:

1. Equal before God.
2. Equal before the law.
3. Equal in their rights.

Principle 7 - The proper role of government is to protect equal rights, not provide equal things.

The Founders recognized that the people cannot delegate to their government any power except that which they have the lawful right to exercise themselves.

Principle 8 - Mankind are endowed by God with certain unalienable rights.

"Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, and are therefore called natural rights, such as are life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal [or state] laws to be inviolable. On the contrary, no human legislation has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner [of the right] shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture." - William Blackstone

Principle 9 - To protect human rights, God has revealed a code of divine law.

"The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the Holy Scriptures. These precepts, when revealed, are found by comparison to be really a part of the original law of nature, as they tend in all their consequences to man's felicity." - William Blackstone

Principle 10 - The God-given right to govern is vested in the sovereign authority of the whole people.

"The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of the consent of the people. The streams of national power ought to flow immediately from that pure, original fountain of all legislative authority." - Alexander Hamilton

Principle 11 - The majority of the people may alter or abolish a government which has become tyrannical.

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes ... but when a long train of abuses and usurpations ... evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." - Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence

Principle 12 - The United States of America shall be a republic.

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
And to the republic for which it stands...."

Principle 13 - A Constitution should protect the people from the frailties of their rulers.

"If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.... [But lacking these] you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." - James Madison

Principle 14 - Life and liberty are secure only so long as the rights of property are secure .

John Locke reasoned that God gave the earth and everything in it to the whole human family as a gift. Therefore the land, the sea, the acorns in the forest, the deer feeding in the meadow belong to everyone "in common." However, the moment someone takes the trouble to change something from its original state of nature, that person has added his ingenuity or labor to make that change. Herein lies the secret to the origin of "property rights."

Principle 15 - The highest level of prosperity occurs when there is a free-market economy and a minimum of government regulations.

Prosperity depends upon a climate of wholesome stimulation with four basic freedoms in operation:

1. The Freedom to try.
2. The Freedom to buy.
3. The Freedom to sell.
4. The Freedom to fail.

Principle 16 - The government should be separated into three branches .

"I call you to witness that I was the first member of the Congress who ventured to come out in public, as I did in January 1776, in my Thoughts on Government ... in favor of a government with three branches and an independent judiciary. This pamphlet, you know, was very unpopular. No man appeared in public to support it but yourself." - John Adams

Principle 17 - A system of checks and balances should be adopted to prevent the abuse of power by the different branches of government.

"It will not be denied that power is of an encroaching nature and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it." - James Madison

Principle 18 - The unalienable rights of the people are most likely to be preserved if the principles of government are set forth in a written Constitution.

The structure of the American system is set forth in the Constitution of the United States and the only weaknesses which have appeared are those which were allowed to creep in despite the Constitution.

Principle 19 - Only limited and carefully defined powers should be delegated to government, all others being retained by the people.

The Tenth Amendment is the most widely violated provision of the bill of rights. If it had been respected and enforced America would be an amazingly different country than it is today. This amendment provides:

"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."

Principle 20 - Efficiency and dispatch require that the government operate according to the will of the majority, but constitutional provisions must be made to protect the rights of the minority.

"Every man, by consenting with others to make one body politic under one government, puts himself under an obligation to every one of that society to submit to the determination of the majority, and to be concluded [bound] by it." - John Locke

Principle 21 - Strong local self-government is the keystone to preserving human freedom.

"The way to have good and safe government is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent [to perform best]. - Thomas Jefferson

Principle 22 - A free people should be governed by law and not by the whims of men.

"The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings, capable of laws, where there is no law there is no freedom. For liberty is to be free from restraint and violence of others, which cannot be where there is no law." - John Locke

Principle 23 - A free society cannot survive as a republic without a broad program of general education.

"They made an early provision by law that every town consisting of so many families should be always furnished with a grammar school. They made it a crime for such a town to be destitute of a grammar schoolmaster for a few months, and subjected it to a heavy penalty. So that the education of all ranks of people was made the care and expense of the public, in a manner that I believe has been unknown to any other people, ancient or modern. The consequences of these establishments we see and feel every day [written in 1765]. A native of America who cannot read and write is as rare ... as a comet or an earthquake." John Adams

Principle 24 - A free people will not survive unless they stay strong.

"To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace." - George Washington

Principle 25 - "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations -- entangling alliances with none."- Thomas Jefferson, given in his first inaugural address.

Principle 26 - The core unit which determines the strength of any society is the family; therefore the government should foster and protect its integrity.

"There is certainly no country in the world where the tie of marriage is more respected than in America, or where conjugal happiness is more highly or worthily appreciated." Alexis de Tocqueville

Principle 27 - The burden of debt is as destructive to human freedom as subjugation by conquest.

"We are bound to defray expenses [of the war] within our own time, and are unauthorized to burden posterity with them.... We shall all consider ourselves morally bound to pay them ourselves and consequently within the life [expectancy] of the majority." - Thomas Jefferson

Principle 28 - The United States has a manifest destiny to eventually become a glorious example of God's law under a restored Constitution that will inspire the entire human race.

The Founders sensed from the very beginning that they were on a divine mission. Their great disappointment was that it didn't all come to pass in their day, but they knew that someday it would. John Adams wrote:

"I always consider the settlement of America with reverence and wonder, as the opening of a grand scene and design in Providence for the illumination of the ignorant, and the emancipation of the slavish part of mankind all over the earth."


The creators of the Constitution were not all for the same exact government. In fact many of you should know that the fighters for liberty and who fought against the tyranny of King George offered George Washington the title of King which he obviously rejected.

Shaws rebellion among other things led directly to the 13 separate "countries" (States) to change the articles of confederation, in fact obliterate it. The Articles of Confederation didn't last long because it gave too much power to the people and not enough to a central government. So in a sense you can say the AntiFederalists won the original battle. The first vote the delegates had at the new convention was to keep the proceedings of the assembly private so men could speak their minds without worrying about the public breathing down their necks. The convention went on for several months. So which side won The Federalists (big government) or the AntiFederalists (power in the people)?

A compromise was made between the two sides. The new Constitution gave more powers to the Federal Government unlike the Confederation had previously. Not all of the states would ratify the new Constitution. Many of the Federalists had to sit down with the states and explain to them point by point why the AntiFederalists shouldn't be scared of the new government. [Generally speaking] They reassured the people and said The Federal Government only had a handful of explicitly delegated powers. This gained many people’s trust but even more was needed. So there was a promised bill of rights to be amended after the Constitution was ratified. This became the "Bill of Rights". Some people were upset at the idea of a bill of rights because the Federal Government could only do a handful of things and writing out a bill of rights could lead to other rights to be taken away.

We may argue who stood for what among the framers. But I think the document that was created protects liberty and the freedom of the people from the Federal Government.

C.) I disagree that much of their thinking was the same as today in the sense that they understood "Natural Law", freedom, and liberty and wanted it, unlike today many people have forgotten and given up on freedom. I think what the problem they had was the implementation on how to preserve those things. In the mid-late 1700’s people fought for an IDEA which was unheard of. Of course the U.S. didn't believe in fighting against the mother country at first, but after the people saw what Brittan was capable of they quickly changed their tune.

B.) I dislike that you say, "Give rights". Government doesn't give anything, they take things, redistribute, and enforce laws. The government is a "Necessary evil."
You say the framers weren't that great. Well in certain respects I think they were [in a non-glossed over sense]. They created the best rule of law yet devised that protected the rights of the individuals from an oppressive government and restrained the Federal Government with a metaphorical ball and chain. They brought together the best they could the best qualities of each type of government into one, the president as the "king" congress as the aristocrats.... etc etc. Maybe not everyone wanted liberty, freedom, and all of that good stuff but that is what came out.
The people demanded some sort of extra security from the federal government above and beyond what they were promised in the Constitution by the Federalists. This was the bill of rights. The bill of rights was useless because it listed things the federal government couldn't do in the first place.
It’s true the framers didn't make a bill of rights to protect the people. That is why powers to the Federal Government were explicitly granted in the Constitution [pre bill of rights] to restrain government and therefore protect rights.

A.) All men are flawed in one way or another even Jefferson understood that. There is no perfect person. Can you name one president who had followed all the rules? I don’t think he was “Awful” I think George W. Bush and F.D.R. were “Awful”.
Can you please elaborate on the following?
He contradicted himself dozens of times, and contradicted his entire philosophy and principles during his presidency. He more or less acted like a Federalist. His past life may reflect well and be a good example, but his entire presidency was more or less based on Federalist principles after the Louisiana Purchase. Elaborate on what he did after the Louisiana Purchase that was Federalist in nature and describe what those Federalist principles were. Thanks! Good debate.

[Athan]

Well, I'm not as well versed in history as a lot of folks up there and even you Patriot. However from the writings I have read from the men, this country has gone overboard and it doesn't even seem like the same country I grew up in. It isn't ridiculous to say "they are spinning in their graves", that this country is a fascist country, and we have lost our freedoms. Simply try to disprove it by starting a business and paying your employees in gold and silver and accepting it as payment for your hard work. Hell say some crazy things on the telephone about the president. I dare you.

But also there is no more individuality and independence that is really respected anymore. Its all just a bunch of people who are now mostly dependent on government. I remember when I used to be taught how to woodwork, metal work, and build. For a good couple of years, that wasn't the focus as I grew up. It was business, paper pushing, and now I realize corporate grooming.

Only NOW do I realize the importance of monetary policy and how fucked a lot of people are because they depend on there being a starbucks or mcdonalds around to provide their meal. Me, I'm still fine regardless of what happens, but I sure as hell pity those used to the city life now that rome is collapsing.

[emazur]

Regarding C)...
(sorry, this is stuff that I've been typing out of a book and haven't spellchecked yet)

"The emitting of paper money by the authority of the Government is wisely prohibited by the individual States, by the national constitution; and the spirit of tha tprohibition ought not tobe dsregarded by the Government of the United States. Though paper emissions, under a general authority, might have some advantages not applicable, and be free from some disadvantages which are applicalbe to the like emissions by the States, separatley, yet they are of a nature so liable to abuse - and it may even be affirmed, so certain of being abused - that the wisdom of the government will be shown in never trusting itself with the use of so seducing and angerous an expedient. In times of tranquility, it might have no ill consequence; it might even be managed in a way to be productive of good; but, in great and trying emergencies, there is almost a moral certainty of its becoming mischievous. The stamping of paper is an operation so much easier than the laying of taxes, that a government, in the practice of paper emmisions, would rarely fail, in any such emergency, to indulge itself too far in the employment f that resource, to avoid, as much as possible, one less auspicious to present popularity. If it should not even be carried so far as to be rendered an absolute bubble, it would at least be likely to be extended to a degree which would occassion an inflated and artificial state of things, incompatible with the regular and prosperous course of the political economy.
Among other material differences between a paper currency, issued by the mere authority of Government, and one issued by a bank, payable in coin, is this: That, in the first case, there is no tandard to which an appeal can be made, as to the quantity which will only satisfy, or which will surcharge the circulation; in the last, that standard results from the demand. If more shold be issued than is necessary, it will return upon the bank."
Alexenader Hamilton

If I recall correctly, Hamilton's purpose of establishing a national bank was for the purpose of giving the United States a good reputation in the international credit arena, and definitely not for the purpose of printing unbacked paper money. Consider another act of Hamilton:


[during the Rev. War, the U.S. government had issued public debt totalling $600 million, which depreciated on the open market to 4 cents on the dollar in 1779]. Hamilton resolved the issue with a proposal to repay the entire debt, which had traded around 4 cents to the dollar, at face value, in gold bullion - even though the government held almost no gold at all. By honoring agreements, Hamilton understood that the new government would create a public confidence in both the government's bonds and the government itself would create a large and influential group of people, bondholders, with a direct interest in the support of the new government and its policies of sound money

[peepnklown]

A – Read: The Constitutional Thought of Thomas Jefferson - David N. Mayer.

Thomas Jefferson was a human who made mistakes, contracted himself and made compromises like all of us. Jefferson knew and struggled with the Constitutional issues raised by the Louisiana Purchase and preferred a Constitutional amendment to authorize the purchase but, finally thought it was impractical and thought the purchase necessary to keep American trade access to the port of New Orleans open. Oddly enough the Federalists opposed the purchase. I concur that the treaty argument can be made. I’d hate to ‘throw the baby out with the bath water.’ Jefferson had no intention of upsetting the firmly established Bank and found it more practical to tackle the main danger he saw in the Banking system: the national debt.
To call Jefferson a Federalist seems to be reaching a bit.
This small introduction does not do you justice so please read the book above.

[Jace]

...

[AuH20]

Thanks for posting this. It is good to think about these things and understand them, which I think most Americans don't do these days. This is why we are on the downward slope and losing what was given to us 233 years ago at great cost, in my opinion.

The Founding Fathers were flawed men, no doubt. But we all are. That is something they understood clearly from bitter experience.

The lived in a time of slavery, flogging, piracy, constant war and tyrants who ruled arbitrarily.

Power corrupts. They knew that. The way to protect against tyranny is to separate powers and provide checks and balances. Diffuse power and share it as widely as possible, make your leaders accountable for their actions, and you are less likely to have an absolute ruler tyrannizing everyone.

That was revolutionary then and remains so today. Also, these men were great thinkers. With all our universities, libraries, the Internet and 233 years of scientific and technological development, I don't think you could find more than a handful of people in government today that could compare. Ron Paul and who else?

Now we have a president who has apparently studied Constitutional law and has said openly that the Constitution is flawed because it only defines negative rights rather than positive rights. He has criticized the Constitution because it restrains government rather than empowers it. This man's foreign policy goals are the opposite of those that George Washington pursued. Obama could turn out to be the man who puts the final nail into the coffin of our Constitution and Republic.
Obama appears to have read Washington's Farewell Address and is now doing the exact opposite of every principle stated. Not good.

I wish today we would follow George Washington's words:

"Excessive partiality for one foreign nation, and excessive dislike of another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real Patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favourite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.
The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign Nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little Political connection as possible.—So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith.—Here let us stop.—"


Excellent points. Obama, despite being a self-avowed constitutional lawyer, has stated previously that his subjective vision of "economic" and "social justice" supercedes the strict tenets outlined in the Constitution. Make no mistake about it. Obama is an enemy to the republic, no matter how thoughtful and cordial he appears.

[acptulsa]

Hamilton was something of an enigma in that group, to be sure...

As for Jefferson and the Louisiana Territory, there are two things you don't seem to understand. First, the American people wanted that territory, and they appeared perfectly willing to go to war to get it. Now, that sounds terrible but they were Europeans from a time when wars over territory were the rule, not the exception. That said, Jefferson didn't purchase it. Monroe did--after begging Napoleon to give him time to get approval from his superiors and getting told agree now or blow it. He agreed, and he sailed home dreading the drubbing that he knew he deserved for overstepping his authority. But he was right, and Jefferson knew it. So, they did what they had to do even though the Constitution they helped bring about hadn't been created with the foresight of such a situation.

And they more than doubled the physical size of the nation, and they avoided a potentially ugly war with France. Sounds like good politics to me. Sounds like your history teacher has some difficulty putting events in perspective, to me.

[beerista]

So, to jump right into this... I began to get heavily interested in history when I was twelve or thirteen or so, and began to get interested in the freedom movement and the history to go with it - and since, I've taken classes at my high school that have contradicted everything I thought I knew, but more importantly everything the 'freedom movement,' 'Ron Paul movement' has taught me historically wise. Or at least that's how I feel. So I have a few questions for anyone who's up to answering them - or statements, actually. If anyone could read these over and try to refute them, please do. I feel as though everything I've learned is just wrong, and that this entire movements philosophy is warped. I'm hoping it's not, and that the classes I have taken are just slanted liberally. So thanks to those who do try to refute these points.
A. Thomas Jefferson is almost always, in the freedom movement, regarded as the "savior of the Constitution," and the role model of what a president had aught' to be. However, Thomas Jefferson infringed upon his principles of a strict interpretation of the Constitution during the Louisiana Purchase, and also wound up - in the end, being more Federalist than Democratic-Republican. In the end, his presidency was more or less based on Federalist stances. He also kept the first Bank of the United States, an institution which he hated, as did his vice president, James Madison, when he became president. Thomas Jefferson is continuously quoted on this forum, and continuously looked up to. Why is it that Thomas Jefferson is seen as the savior of the Constitution, and the 'greatest man' in American history in this movement, when in reality he is an awful example and role model of our movement? He contradicted himself dozens of times, and contradicted his entire philosophy and principles during his presidency. He more or less acted like a Federalist. His past life may reflect well and be a good example, but his entire presidency was more or less based on Federalist principles after the Louisiana Purchase.

As I suggested in my first post, and I will get further into here, Thomas Jefferson was a man of great ideas, but just a man, as fallible and weak as anyone else. Among his many hypocrisies, he wrote eloquently of all men being equal while holding slaves. Does this mean that all men should not be equal before the law, because the man who wrote these words failed to live up to them? Of course not. If you attend church, it is likely that your pastor will implore you to treat others as you would like to be treated. If you then find out that he has not been equal to this task, do you decide that the ideal is not worth striving for? Of course not; that would be a childish response, but not an unusual one. This is why hero worship (often called “drinking the Kool-Ade” around these parts) is such a bad idea; when our idols fall, we often throw their worth-while ideals down the garbage chute with them. This is sad, largely because ideals that are easily attained are usually not worth much. [A corollary to this is that a principle is not really a principle if we cast it off when it becomes difficult (think trading liberty for security).]
By the way, Jefferson was not at the Constitutional Convention (he was in Paris at the time) and initially disapproved of the Constitution. I've heard him referred to as the “Father of the Constitution” (by people who don't know their history), but never heard him referred to as its “savior”, though I'm sure you're right that some people may call him that. You can probably safely disregard those people.


B. The founders - or framers, rather, really weren't 'amazing men who all wanted to keep to the principles of liberty, and all wanted to create a government that was restrained, and give Americans rights and liberties.' People time and time again on this forum and in this movement have made the framers out to be these men who would never have wanted a big government, who could do no wrong, and who constructed the Constitution with these principles of liberty in mind, who wanted to have absolutely no tyranny, and give Americans these awesome and amazing rights, and this solid Constitution that would restrain the federal government.
Skipping a paragraph to make this read a bit easier - with that said... Many of the people at the Constitutional Convention really seem like they wanted to just play politics to get things passed. The Three Fifths Compromise, for example. Or the compromise to make the Congress have two houses [drawing a blank...] Alexander Hamilton and many others like him were big government politicians who only wanted to increase the size of the federal government. They are not role models for our movement, and thus not all the founding fathers held the opinions our movement holds. Time and time again it is said, or at least implied that all the founding fathers held just that - these ideas of liberty and small government. Even George Washington didn't hold our views - he commonly agreed with Alexander Hamilton - most notably on the first Bank of the United States, and held a loose interpretation of the Constitution. Not all the founding fathers would have the same interpretation of the Constitution, either - they each had their own different ideas.

I should have thought this would have been obvious from the existence of the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, if it was not obvious from the fact that they were just men, a category of being known to often have differing views, even if they are largely synoptic.
What we generally refer to as the “Liberty Movement” (and you should note the diversity of opinion even on these boards, among people who do generally share “our views”) does not follow a particular man's actions, but rather the ideals of liberty, which I would suggest are most fully embodied in the words of Jefferson (even if not in all his actions). Any intellectually honest liberty activist would admit that these ideals have never been fully implemented, even in the founding generation.
As others have pointed out, Hamilton was an authoritarian, a statist. Perhaps I'm being too generous, but I think even he would shudder at what our country has become.


Again, skipping a paragraph to make this read easier as this is a huge point... the founding fathers did not, NOT create the Bill of Rights because they thought 'all Americans should be free and prosperous, and to restrain the federal government from tyranny.' They created it as a political bribe to the states in order to get the Constitution ratified. It was a compromise. They went back and drafted the Bill of Rights after the Constitution because of the bribe they made. So in reality, our Bill of Rights has no, NO meaning other than it being a political bribe to get a big government document passed. The only reason they actually went back and drafted it was because they were at least honorable and kept to their word.

It is more than a bit of overstatement to say that the Bill of Rights has “no, NO meaning other than it being a political bribe to get a big government document passed”. I think it might be more accurately viewed as the first example of checks and balances working under the new government; after all, the states withheld their consent until they got a promise of the protection of rights from the federal government. One of the checks that is often overlooked is the states acting as a check against the power of the central government.
As for the Bill being meaningless, I think you should look at its origins. Most of the rights laid out therein, with the obvious exceptions of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, are taken from various state constitutions, sometimes practically word for word. Did these delineations of rights have no meaning when they were first incorporated into the state constitutions?
This brings me to one of my (few) points of agreement with Hamilton. He argued against the inclusion of the Bill of Rights on the grounds that spelling out certain rights would lead to the assumption by future generations that the rights written into the Bill were their only rights, to the exclusion of others not explicitly mentioned. I'm not so sure that he wasn't being disingenuous on this point, but no matter; he was clearly right. As we can see by the way that the natural right to defend ourselves (from crime or tyranny) is usually framed and debated as our “Second Amendment rights” and the way in which SCOTUS decisions are seen to limit our “First Amendment rights” by a determination of whether a certain right of expression can be said to comply with the wording of the First Amendment. Like him or not, Hamilton called this one right on the button.


C. "The framers would be rolling in their grave if they saw what was going on today in American politics." This phrase is repeated constantly in this movement. In reality, the politics back then and the way of thinking was more or less the same as it is today. If Alexander Hamilton and many other like Federalists were alive today, they would view the Federal Reserve and the printing of worthless paper money as a great American achievement. They would view big government and regulation as a great American achievement. They would view a loose interpretation of the Constitution as a great American achievement. Is this true, or can this be refuted?

Again, as much as I hate to give an inch to Hamilton, I think you'd need to back up this statement. His writing is certainly the most powerfully in favor of centralization, but I can't think that even he would approve of our current situation. If you have more to offer in favor of your position, I'd be happy to hear it.



If anyone could refute these points, please do. I'm really hoping I'm wrong. And I'm really hoping someone is intelligent enough to be able to refute all of these. Please don't give me garbage like, "you're being brainwashed by the New World Order" or "Thomas Jefferson was in reality brainwashed by Alexander Hamilton in utmost secrecy to agree to the Louisiana Purchase." Thanks And thank you to the person, or persons who respond.

The quick and dirty response to your post is simply:
People in the founding generation had as varied opinions as people in most generations.
People working toward a similar goal don't always hope to get the same thing out of it.
People are fallible in all generations.
People in later generations will tend to idolize people of earlier generations, whether the earlier people wanted it or deserved it.
So what else is new?

[hotbrownsauce]

The Senate, the Congress, Thomas Jefferson, the people of the United States, James Monroe, and Robert R. Livingston U.S. Minister to France were all responsible for the Louisiana purchase. James Monroe gave 2 million of the USA's money and signed the treaty. Jefferson was surprised and backed the treaty, and the Senate approved it.

Source : http://www.nps.gov/archive/jeff/LewisClark2/Circa1804/Heritage/LouisianaPurchase/LouisianaPurchase.htm

Thomas Jefferson, third President of the United States, was disturbed by Napoleon's plans to re-establish French colonies in America. With the possession of New Orleans, Napoleon could close the Mississippi to U.S. commerce at any time. Jefferson authorized Robert R. Livingston, U.S. Minister to France, to negotiate for the purchase for up to $2 million of the City of New Orleans, portions of the east bank of the Mississippi, and free navigation of the river for U.S. commerce................
....... President Jefferson ignored public pressure for war with France, and appointed James Monroe special envoy to Napoleon, to assist in obtaining New Orleans for the United States. Jefferson boosted the authorized expenditure of funds to $10 million............
........On April 11, 1803, Talleyrand asked Robert Livingston how much the United States was prepared to pay for Louisiana. Livingston was confused, as his instructions only covered the purchase of New Orleans and the immediate area, not the entire Louisiana territory. James Monroe agreed with Livingston that Napoleon might withdraw this offer at any time. To wait for approval from President Jefferson might take months, so Livingston and Monroe decided to open negotiations immediately. By April 30, they closed a deal for the purchase of the entire 828,000 square mile Louisiana territory for 60 million Francs (approximately $15 million). Part of this sum was used to forgive debts owed by France to the United States. The payment was made in United States bonds, which Napoleon sold at face value to the Dutch firm of Hope and Company, and the British banking house of Baring, at a discount of 87 1/2 per each $100 unit. As a result, Napoleon received only $8,831,250 in cash for Louisiana. Dutiful banker Alexander Baring conferred with Marbois in Paris, shuttled to the United States to pick up the bonds, took them to Britain, and returned to France with the money - and Napoleon used these funds to wage war against Baring's own country!

When news of the purchase reached the United States, President Jefferson was surprised. He had authorized the expenditure of $10 million for a port city, and instead received treaties committing the government to spend $15 million on a land package which would double the size of the country.

Source : http://www.jamesmonroe.org/2003place2.html

On May 2, 1803 Monroe took a risk and signed the Louisiana Purchase. Then Napoleon further complicated the matter by threatening to cancel the deal unless provided with an immediate down payment. By signing the treaty, Monroe had placed himself and America waist deep in a fountain that he felt would bring new life to the nation. At this point, America could still climb out by rejecting the treaty. However, when Monroe authorized a two million dollar down payment, he had rendered the treaty irreversible and plunged America into the depths of the water.16 Now the future relied entirely on the choice that Monroe had made.

[ChaosControl]

It is true that Thomas Jefferson may have done some inappropriate things, but overall when you compare that with the presidents of today he is still leagues ahead. He was by no means perfect, not was his presidency the model to shoot for, but his philosophy is one to inspire. It is the philosophy I believe that attracts most to him, not his presidency.

The founders did have varying views on the size and role of government. Some wanted more and some wanted less. That is no secret. And what you say about the constitution and BoR is true. This is why, even though I respect the constitution, I don't believe it is the ultimate goal for liberty. Eventually I believe we'd need to redo the whole thing, but I wouldn't trust such in the modern era.

I think all of the founders would be appalled at the modern day government, even Hamilton. Yes he may have wanted massive government compared to others of the founders, but I doubt even he could stomach what things have become. Who knows, maybe it'd even make him realize that he was wrong, that the government couldn't be trusted with that much power and that a central bank can destroy a nation.

[GBurr]

Do not rely on your textbooks and the summaries that you gain from others. You need to begin reading everything that you can that was actually written by the framers. This will help you understand the time and the people. Textbooks do an awful job of bringing the situations and people to life.

The Federalist Papers are a good place to start.