Who's Your Favorite Founder?

[Galileo Galilei]

Who's Your Favorite Founder?

Founding Fathers of the United States

The Founding Fathers of the United States were the political leaders who signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776 or otherwise took part in the American Revolution in winning American independence from Great Britain, or who participated in framing and adopting the United States Constitution in 1787-1788, or in putting the new government under the Constitution into effect. Within the large group known as "the founding fathers," there are two key subsets, the Signers (who signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776) and the Framers (who were delegates to the Federal Convention and took part in framing or drafting the proposed Constitution of the United States). Most historians define the "founding fathers" to mean a larger group, including not only the Signers and the Framers but also all those who, whether as politicians or jurists or statesmen or soldiers or diplomats or ordinary citizens, took part in winning American independence and creating the United States of America.

The eminent American historian Richard B. Morris, in his 1973 book Seven Who Shaped Our Destiny: The Founding Fathers as Revolutionaries, identified the following seven figures as the key founding fathers: Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton.

Warren G. Harding, then a Republican Senator from Ohio, coined the phrase "Founding Fathers" in his keynote address to the 1916 Republican National Convention. He used it several times thereafter, most prominently in his 1921 inaugural address as President of the United States.

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

Google Hits for; "Founding Father" "Name of Founding Father", in thousands:

George Washington 107

Thomas Jefferson 95.2

Benjamin Franklin 73.5

John Adams 49

James Madison 37.4

Alexander Hamilton 35.8

Thomas Paine 20.5

Patrick Henry 18.1

Samuel Adams 15.7

John Jay 14.8

James Monroe 12.2

George Mason 11.8

James Wilson 7.61

John Hancock 7.57

John Marshall 7.2

Henry Lee 4.86

Gouverneur Morris 4.68

Robert Morris 4.22

Elbridge Gerry 4.11

"All of them".

:cool:

[Vessol]

Alexander Hamilton and John Adams are disturbingly pretty high up there for what they did.

The first creating the first Central Bank in the United States and instigated the Whiskey Rebellion to "solidify the Federal Governments powers"

and John Adams whom was behind the Alien and Sedition Acts.

[parocks]

How often did Abraham Lincoln show up in Google w/ founding father?

Abraham Lincoln was Mika Brzezinski's pick.

[Vessol]

Thomas Jefferson all the way.

Agrarian Republic FTW.

[Galileo Galilei]

Alexander Hamilton and John Adams are disturbingly pretty high up there for what they did.

The first creating the first Central Bank in the United States and instigated the Whiskey Rebellion to "solidify the Federal Governments powers"

and John Adams whom was behind the Alien and Sedition Acts.

John Adams averted war with France, and was the driving force behind independence. He was also a very important diplomat. He also had the balls to defend the British soldiers after the Boston Massacre. The Alien & Seditions Acts were temporary, unlike the Patriot Act.

Hamilton had a lot of help with the bank, including George Washington and 39 members of the House of Representatives, plus the majority of the Senate. It was a temporary bank anyway, unlike the Fed. The bank did not print fiat currency either, and did not operate in utter secrecy. It was not 100% privately owned either. If the Fed had to adhere to the standards of the 1st Bank, we would all be in much better shape.

Hamilton also wrote 51 of the Federalist Papers which is a canonical text on limited constitutional government. Hamilton also served in the Revolutionary war as a soldier and even led at least one battle charge.

Despite being wrong on several issues, Hamilton was not corrupt, unlike most of the US congress today.

[Joseph de Maistre]

Why, John Jay of course

[Galileo Galilei]

How often did Abraham Lincoln show up in Google w/ founding father?

Abraham Lincoln was Mika Brzezinski's pick.

Abraham Lincoln is not a Founding Father, thank God. He got 41.6, putting him in 5th place, ahead of Madison.

Who's Mike Brzeznski? He sounds like an idiot.

[Kludge]

Who's Mike Brzeznski? He sounds like an idiot.

Co-host on MSNBC's 3-hour-long Morning Joe. Daughter of Zbigniew, national security adviser of Carter. Hates cigarettes (suggested US military folks should be banned from smoking).

[Galileo Galilei]

Co-host on MSNBC's 3-hour-long Morning Joe. Daughter of Zbigniew, national security adviser of Carter. Hates cigarettes (suggested US military folks should be banned from smoking).

That's a pretty loose definition of a Founding Father. I sometimes squeeze Andrew Jackson in or heroes of the War of 1812, but Lincoln is really pushing it. Jackson served as a page in the revolutionary war.

I did have a copy of an 8-volume set of the history of the United States published in 1917. At the end, it had a section called "Founders of the Republic".

It had most of the major Founders listed, but it did have Abe Lincoln as well. It also had Henry Knox among the 15 men listed.

[Galileo Galilei]

Other Polls Here:

1)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/1/15/825153/-Whos-your-favorite-Founder

Here's Sarah's short list for Favorite Founder. They're all important Revolutionary War figures and strong Presidents. Whose's your favorite?

Current Rankings

1. Jefferson
2. Franklin
3. Washington
4. Hamilton
5. Lincoln (?)
6. Ulysses S. Grant (??)
7. Andrew Jackson

2)

http://www.theagitator.com/2008/04/07/monday-morning-poll-11/

Monday Morning Poll
Who's your favorite founding father?

Current Rankings

1. Thomas Jefferson
2. Benjamin Franklin
3. George Washington
4. Alexander Hamilton
5. James Madison
6. Thomas Paine
7. Patrick Henry
8. John Adams
9. George Mason
10. Sam Adams
11. Gouverneur Morris
12. John Marshall

[Galileo Galilei]

Co-host on MSNBC's 3-hour-long Morning Joe. Daughter of Zbigniew, national security adviser of Carter. Hates cigarettes (suggested US military folks should be banned from smoking).

MSNBC Idiocy: "I think Abraham Lincoln was my favorite founder"

Glenn Beck reported that MSNBC morning anchor Megib Zezinski (dont know if spelling is correct,don't care, its MSNBC) was berating and bemoaning Beck's interview with Sarah Palin where he asked Palin who her favorite Founding Father was. After some hesitation she said George Washington was because
he was genuinely sincere, after much belittling by Zesinski and cohorts, Zezinski was asked who was her favorite founder, and Zezinski replied that "Abraham Lincoln was her favorite founder". Lincoln had not even been born yet at the time of this nations founding.

http://www.resistnet.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2600775%3ABlogPost%3A1933263&commentId=2600775%3AComment%3A1933362&xg_source=activity

:eek:

[Kotin]

Thomas Jefferson all the way.

Agrarian Republic FTW.

my thoughts exactly.

[Galileo Galilei]

Here's another two polls you can vote in:

1)

Topic: who's your favorite founding father?
http://vnboards.ign.com/outpost/b22180/112389332/p1/

Results so far:

1. Jefferson
2. Franklin
3. Washington
4. All of them!
5T. Madison & John Adams
7T. Hamilton & Jay

2)

Who is your favorite founding father
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/1/14/94815/9937

Results so far:

1. Jefferson
2. Franklin
3. John Adams
4. Madison
5. Washington
6. Hamilton (and "other")
7. Jay
8. none of them

[Galileo Galilei]

One more poll:

Poll question: Favorite Founding Father?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x2751021

1. Franklin
2. Jefferson
3. John Adams
4T. Henry, Madison, and Washington
7. Other
8T. Hamilton, Sam Adams, and Paul Revere

[Che]

I voted T-Paine, he's a singer right?

[hotbrownsauce]

I would have voted Nathaniel Macon, a true patriot! He fought in the Revolutionary war. He served as part of the State Government of North Carolina starting in 1781 and continued the rest of the 1780's even though he never campaigned for office his entire life (37 years in some kind of representative office in total). He originally declined going to the state legislature but finally did as a favor to General Nathanael Greene. In 1786 he was elected by the state of North Carolina to go to the Continental Congress but declined.

Macon believed the Federal Government overstepped its boundaries too often. And voted no as often as Ron Paul does today because of the same belief as Ron Paul. Macon called Alexander Hamilton the "supreme evil-doer" and formed alliances against Hamiltons economic programs. Macon believed in secession and nullification. However later in his life he said that he believes that nullification doesn't really work and that a state would have to secede if she wanted to. Macon also said the Federal Government could not use force against a state to "maintain the union". Macon also believed in fiscal responsibility and to never waste money, spend too much, or especially leave a debt.

Interestingly, folklore says Macon awoke the day he died and knew he would die that day. He cleaned himself up called his doctor and undertaker and paid both of them and went to sleep. He truly believed in not leaving debts behind to future generations.

(Information above was obtained from "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Founding Fathers")

[trey4sports]

Favorite founder was Jefferson by far. He wasn't perfect as a president but he did a good job and on top of that he was very influential in archaic libertarian thought

[Galileo Galilei]

I would have voted Nathaniel Macon, a true patriot! He fought in the Revolutionary war. He served as part of the State Government of North Carolina starting in 1781 and continued the rest of the 1780's even though he never campaigned for office his entire life (37 years in some kind of representative office in total). He originally declined going to the state legislature but finally did as a favor to General Nathanael Greene. In 1786 he was elected by the state of North Carolina to go to the Continental Congress but declined.

Macon believed the Federal Government overstepped its boundaries too often. And voted no as often as Ron Paul does today because of the same belief as Ron Paul. Macon called Alexander Hamilton the "supreme evil-doer" and formed alliances against Hamiltons economic programs. Macon believed in secession and nullification. However later in his life he said that he believes that nullification doesn't really work and that a state would have to secede if she wanted to. Macon also said the Federal Government could not use force against a state to "maintain the union". Macon also believed in fiscal responsibility and to never waste money, spend too much, or especially leave a debt.

Interestingly, folklore says Macon awoke the day he died and knew he would die that day. He cleaned himself up called his doctor and undertaker and paid both of them and went to sleep. He truly believed in not leaving debts behind to future generations.

(Information above was obtained from "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Founding Fathers")

That's an interesting post, I didn't know much about Nathaniel Macon. I'm interested in lesser known Founding Fathers and those who have place names named after them. I assume that Macon, Georgia was named after Macon.

btw

I was going to buy "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Founding Fathers" a few months ago. I had it in my hand and was headed to the check-out at Barnes & Noble. But then I took a thumb throught it.

Some of the stuff in there was pretty strange. First of all, it made a big deal claiming that "James Madison was not the father of the Constitution".

Weird because the book seemed to be promoting the Articles of Confederation over the Constititon.

They had claims, if I remember correctly that John Dickinson and Roger Sherman were the fathers of the Constitution. While these were important members, they did not have as much influence as Madison at the Constitutional convention, nor did they speak as often or takes notes. They had even less influence organizing the convention and ratifying it. If you include the bill-of-Rights which is part of the Constitution, Madison wrote that and pushed it through congress. Sherman had a small part as he was on a committee helped pass it. Dickinson had noithing to do with it at all.

Now back to the article of confederation, one problem with defending it is that the biggest states rights advocates at the convention were almost all from the small states (Yates & Lansing of NY excepted). William Paterson was one of the most important, he wrote the New Jersey Plan, also called the Paterson Plan, that was a mildly modifed Articles of Confederation. Another was Dickinson of Delaware who fought Madison head-to-head on the Senate, with Dickinson pushing for equal representation by state and not population. Another was Sherman of Connecticut who initially oppposed the Virginia Plan.

But the biggest states-right defenders ended up being the biggest defenders of the Constitution, because when the small states got equal votes in the Senate, they jumped on board as a great deal for the small states. Small states like Connecticut, Rhode Island, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, and New Hampshire would never have survived as independent nations for very long, as they would have easily been occupied by a major power in the next war, whether it be large states like New York, Massachusettes, Pennsylvania, or Virginia, or the British. Most of the small states were the first to ratify the Constitution.

So if you oppose the Constitution and support the Articles of Confederation, then you basically end up with the idea that all the Founding Fathers were really bad except Luther Martin (a rambling drunk) and George Clinton (who didn't found anything). All the other Founding Fathers supported the Constitution after the Bill-of-Rights was added, and almost all of them were unsatisfied with the Articles of Confederation from the beginning.

The book was so filled with twisted logic and major ommissions that I put it back.

[Galileo Galilei]

Favorite founder was Jefferson by far. He wasn't perfect as a president but he did a good job and on top of that he was very influential in archaic libertarian thought

Jefferson did one hell of a great job as president. He presided over the Louisiana Purchase and the Lewis & Clark expedition, which expanded scientific knowledge. And the Zebulan Pike expedition that located Pikes Peak. The slave trade was ended forever. The embargo act put off war for 5 more years, giving the US population time to rise and our economy to grow for the war of 1812. He kept spending down. He didn't spend much on the military. He followed a strict construction view of the Constitution. He continued the precedent of only two terms for president. He didn't jump into war after the Chesepeake incident. He started the precedent of the president having his annual message read to congress, rather than reading it himself (lasted until Woodrow Wilson). He had to deal with the British and French kidnapping our sailers (thousands) and capturing or ships (hundreds).

Considering the conditions he faced, much more difficult than today, he was on the very short list of greatest presidents ever for both of his terms

[Galileo Galilei]

Favorite founder was Jefferson by far. He wasn't perfect as a president but he did a good job and on top of that he was very influential in archaic libertarian thought

The next time I do a poll like this, it will say; "Besides Jefferson, who's your favorite Founder?"

:D

It might make the poll more interesting....

[Galileo Galilei]

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government."

– Patrick Henry

[Ricky201]

Jefferson did one hell of a great job as president. He presided over the Louisiana Purchase and the Lewis & Clark expedition, which expanded scientific knowledge. And the Zebulan Pike expedition that located Pikes Peak. The slave trade was ended forever. The embargo act put off war for 5 more years, giving the US population time to rise and our economy to grow for the war of 1812. He kept spending down. He didn't spend much on the military. He followed a strict construction view of the Constitution. He continued the precedent of only two terms for president. He didn't jump into war after the Chesepeake incident. He started the precedent of the president having his annual message read to congress, rather than reading it himself (lasted until Woodrow Wilson). He had to deal with the British and French kidnapping our sailers (thousands) and capturing or ships (hundreds).

Considering the conditions he faced, much more difficult than today, he was on the very short list of greatest presidents ever for both of his terms

Umm...wouldn't you think that the embargo act was actually what led us to war in 1812? Also many northerners suffered economically thanks to this act. And how did he follow a strict construction view of the Constitution with the Louisiana Purchase? Wasn't that unconstitutional?

Don't get me wrong I like Jefferson, but he was incredibly flawed as a president for his time in my opinion.

Than again there isn't one president that hasn't been oppressive in way or another.

[hugolp]

Hamilton had a lot of help with the bank, including George Washington and 39 members of the House of Representatives, plus the majority of the Senate. It was a temporary bank anyway, unlike the Fed. The bank did not print fiat currency either, and did not operate in utter secrecy. It was not 100% privately owned either. If the Fed had to adhere to the standards of the 1st Bank, we would all be in much better shape.

If you read the original regulations of the Fed they are not that bad. A lot of checks. For example, the Fed had to have 140% in reserves, 100% in "real goods" (goods stored at the banks) and 40% in gold. So the Fed could not emit notes having a 100% reserve, it needed a 140% reserve. But once people was used to the central bank, the laws where changed slowly, some boring and difficult to understand changes that few people notice or care, and boila! you get the Fed as it is today. In fact, the quickest changes happened during times of war and crisis. The Fed used those periods to grab power.

As for the first or the second Bank of the USA they inflated the currency heavily (I can look for numbers if you want). They did this wihtout having gold in reserve, using fractional reserve, and they could get away with it because people trusted their notes because of goverment regulations. In fact, the goverment had its gold stored there and they could piramid debt on top of it. One of the first moves of Jackson to kill the bank was to move the goverment funds out of the bank.

The point here is that the original regulations usually are not that bad. Otherwise such polemic laws would not pass. Later you can change them, and nobody cares about little changes in some goverment regulation.

[coyote_sprit]

Um, I think... All of them.

[Joseph de Maistre]

"Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people, a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs..."

-John Jay, who ended slavery in New York

[Galileo Galilei]

Umm...wouldn't you think that the embargo act was actually what led us to war in 1812? Also many northerners suffered economically thanks to this act. And how did he follow a strict construction view of the Constitution with the Louisiana Purchase? Wasn't that unconstitutional?

Don't get me wrong I like Jefferson, but he was incredibly flawed as a president for his time in my opinion.

Than again there isn't one president that hasn't been oppressive in way or another.

The Louisiana Purchase was a great land deal, and just a treaty with France that was ratified. Jefferson just had the consideration to inquire into its Constitutionality, unlike presidents today.

The embargo act prevented the War on 1812 from being the war of 1807 or 1808. It was an anti-war measure and anti-Empire measure. Jefferson did not support it just for the heck of it.

Neutrality under Jefferson and Madison
http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/Neutrality-under-Jefferson-and-Madison.topicArticleId-25073,articleId-25031.html

The northermers also benefitted from the Embargo Act:

* They weren't drawn into a war with the British Empire during the period of 1807 to 1809, when the british may have reconquered our territory and shut off our shipping.

* After 1815, the economy boomed with free trade, with the Great Lakes open, the Atlantic ocean open, and the West Indies. The economic sanctions were a factor in the British Empire calling off the dogs in 1815.

No, Jefferson was no oppressive, nor was Madison. The common people who were growing in population and moving west, and the States were more oppressive than the presidents at this time.

[Liberty Star]

TJ ofcourse.

[Galileo Galilei]

If you read the original regulations of the Fed they are not that bad. A lot of checks. For example, the Fed had to have 140% in reserves, 100% in "real goods" (goods stored at the banks) and 40% in gold. So the Fed could not emit notes having a 100% reserve, it needed a 140% reserve. But once people was used to the central bank, the laws where changed slowly, some boring and difficult to understand changes that few people notice or care, and boila! you get the Fed as it is today. In fact, the quickest changes happened during times of war and crisis. The Fed used those periods to grab power.

As for the first or the second Bank of the USA they inflated the currency heavily (I can look for numbers if you want). They did this wihtout having gold in reserve, using fractional reserve, and they could get away with it because people trusted their notes because of goverment regulations. In fact, the goverment had its gold stored there and they could piramid debt on top of it. One of the first moves of Jackson to kill the bank was to move the goverment funds out of the bank.

The point here is that the original regulations usually are not that bad. Otherwise such polemic laws would not pass. Later you can change them, and nobody cares about little changes in some goverment regulation.

We had no need for the Fed in 1913. Nor did the Federal government have a need. By that time, we had a giant, growing economy.

It is the fault of those who made the Fed happen in 1913, and those who made it grow that are at fault, not Alexander Hamilton.

In 1791, the federal governemt needed a central bank. The federal government had almost no income and we had a very small economy. That is why the congress passed the 1st bank and Washington signed it. It is as simple as that.

But they made it a temporary bank that could be eliminated. It was. Once the federal government got on its feet, it was taken out. That precedent was not heeded in 1913, nor has it been heeded since.

Also, governments do not always grow bigger, that is a myth.

The Roman Empire is much smaller today than it was in 300 AD. The empire of Genhis Khan & Kublai Khan is much smaller as well.

The people ultimately decide what direction the government moves in.

[Galileo Galilei]

STATISTICS FOR THE 19 MEN IN THE POLL:

9 signed the Declaration of Independence

Jefferson, Franklin, J. Adams, S. Adams, Wilson, Hancock, Lee, R. Morris, Gerry

9 attended the Constitutional Convention

Washington, Franklin, Madison, Hamilton, Mason, Wilson, G. Morris, R. Morris, Gerry

7 signed the Constitution

Washington, Franklin, Madison, Hamilton, Wilson, G. Morris, R. Morris

8 were from Virginia

Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Henry, Monroe, Mason, Marshall, Lee

4 were from Pennsylvania

Franklin, Wilson, G. Morris, R. Morris

4 were from Massachusetts

J. Adams, S. Adams, Hancock, Gerry

2 were from New York

Hamilton, Jay

Paine was basically a northerner, attached to no particular state.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

The Louisiana Purchase was a great land deal, and just a treaty with France that was ratified. Jefferson just had the consideration to inquire into its Constitutionality, unlike presidents today.

The embargo act prevented the War on 1812 from being the war of 1807 or 1808. It was an anti-war measure and anti-Empire measure. Jefferson did not support it just for the heck of it.

Neutrality under Jefferson and Madison
http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/Neutrality-under-Jefferson-and-Madison.topicArticleId-25073,articleId-25031.html

The northermers also benefitted from the Embargo Act:

* They weren't drawn into a war with the British Empire during the period of 1807 to 1809, when the british may have reconquered our territory and shut off our shipping.

* After 1815, the economy boomed with free trade, with the Great Lakes open, the Atlantic ocean open, and the West Indies. The economic sanctions were a factor in the British Empire calling off the dogs in 1815.

No, Jefferson was no oppressive, nor was Madison. The common people who were growing in population and moving west, and the States were more oppressive than the presidents at this time.

He knew the Louisiana purchase was not constitutional when he did it. That fact has already been debated at length.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Who's Your Favorite Founder?

Founding Fathers of the United States

The Founding Fathers of the United States were the political leaders who signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776 or otherwise took part in the American Revolution in winning American independence from Great Britain, or who participated in framing and adopting the United States Constitution in 1787-1788, or in putting the new government under the Constitution into effect. Within the large group known as "the founding fathers," there are two key subsets, the Signers (who signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776) and the Framers (who were delegates to the Federal Convention and took part in framing or drafting the proposed Constitution of the United States). Most historians define the "founding fathers" to mean a larger group, including not only the Signers and the Framers but also all those who, whether as politicians or jurists or statesmen or soldiers or diplomats or ordinary citizens, took part in winning American independence and creating the United States of America.

The eminent American historian Richard B. Morris, in his 1973 book Seven Who Shaped Our Destiny: The Founding Fathers as Revolutionaries, identified the following seven figures as the key founding fathers: Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton.

Warren G. Harding, then a Republican Senator from Ohio, coined the phrase "Founding Fathers" in his keynote address to the 1916 Republican National Convention. He used it several times thereafter, most prominently in his 1921 inaugural address as President of the United States.

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

Google Hits for; "Founding Father" "Name of Founding Father", in thousands:

George Washington 107

Thomas Jefferson 95.2

Benjamin Franklin 73.5

John Adams 49

James Madison 37.4

Alexander Hamilton 35.8

Thomas Paine 20.5

Patrick Henry 18.1

Samuel Adams 15.7

John Jay 14.8

James Monroe 12.2

George Mason 11.8

James Wilson 7.61

John Hancock 7.57

John Marshall 7.2

Henry Lee 4.86

Gouverneur Morris 4.68

Robert Morris 4.22

Elbridge Gerry 4.11

"All of them".

:cool:

Flesh and blood is just flesh and blood. The smart, strong, ruthless, pretty, clean, savvy, well disciplined and gifted people ruling over our nation are no better than the smart, strong, ruthless, pretty, clean, savvy, well disciplined and gifted people ruling over other nations. Our nation is different because our "Founding Fathers" established it on a natural law. This natural law did not implement a deep, dark political science to manipulate the people politically, but established a self-evident and unalienable Truth. This Truth holds that all men are created equally with the same Civil Purpose. The focus is not on the legislation, the administration and the judicial aspects of legal precedence, for this is just the necessary tyranny, but on the people's Formal Culture established by our Civil Purpose.
I beg to differ with most in here. Our Founding Fathers were greater than other lessor founders in other nations because they were willing to stand in God's judgement, declaring a Truth while being responsible for it by signing their names to it
Therefore, we should refer to them as *"Our" and "Founding Fathers."
*President Obama distances himself from our Founding Fathers and the people's Civil Purpose by referring to them simply as "the founders." This tactic raises him up to their level.

[Galileo Galilei]

He knew the Louisiana purchase was not constitutional when he did it. That fact has already been debated at length.

Why's that? It was a basic ratified treaty. Land aquisitition was a normal treaty function under international law at the time and under common law.

The people who opposed the Louisiana Purchase were pro-empire. The NE states wanted to land to remain in control of the French Empire, rather than under a free Constitutional Republic.

Later, these same NE states wanted the land of the Louisiana Purchase to remain as territories, rather than states. Empires have territories. Free republics have semi-independent States with equal Constitutional rights, powers, and privileges.

You are making pro-Empire argumernts. I am anti-Empire.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Why's that? It was a basic ratified treaty. Land aquisitition was a normal treaty function under international law at the time and under common law.

The people who opposed the Louisiana Purchase were pro-empire. The NE states wanted to land to remain in control of the French Empire, rather than under a free Constitutional Republic.

Later, these same NE states wanted the land of the Louisiana Purchase to remain as territories, rather than states. Empires have territories. Free republics have semi-independent States with equal Constitutional rights, powers, and privileges.

You are making pro-Empire argumernts. I am anti-Empire.

You are asking a ridiculous question since you participated in the thread where treaty powers with regards to the Louisiana Purchase we're discussed at length. Excerpts from the convention notes we're cited as well as excerpts from writings of Jefferson, etc.

Your argument is similar to proponents of health care. No amendment required to expand the scope and power of government.

[Galileo Galilei]

You are asking a ridiculous question since you participated in the thread where treaty powers with regards to the Louisiana Purchase we're discussed at length. Excerpts from the convention notes we're cited as well as excerpts from writings of Jefferson, etc.

Your argument is similar to proponents of health care. No amendment required to expand the scope and power of government.

Routine treaty powers have always included aquisition of terrirtory. After wars are over, treaties divide up territory. Read Vattal.

The Louisiana Purchase was just a little different, it was land by purchase and consent, rather than land by conquest and the sword.

You have a fixation and are making pro-war argumants.

[xd9fan]

Where is Paul Revere?? and the no-named farmers at concord and lexington (God Bless them all)

I like everyday people (that too believed they had a stake) like
http://www.lemen.com/rides.html


"Hi! My name is Sybil Ludington. I was born in 1761, in Fredericksburg, New York. (Now known as the Ludington section of Kent.) I was the oldest of twelve children. I spent most of my time taking care of my younger siblings and doing household chores. Those were the things that girls did in that era (time).
My world changed suddenly on April 26, 1777. I was 16 years old at the time and was putting the younger children to bed when a rider galloped up to our house. He informed us that British troops were burning the town of Danbury, Connecticut. It was only a few miles from our house.

My father was colonel of the local militia. His men were scattered over the countryside. Since the exhausted rider who had warned us of the British destruction could go no further, I convinced father to allow me to take my horse, Star, and ride to the homes of his men telling them to band together to defend our community.

Father finally agreed and I jumped on Star and rode 40 miles alerting his men. The night was dark and I rode alone, using only a stick to prod Star and knock on doors. It was quite a trip, but I succeeded in alerting all the men. They banded together and drove the British back to their ships.

The ride was kind of scary. After all, there was a war going on and I was alone with no one to protect me. Because of what I did, people hailed me as a heroine. I was just doing what I felt I had to do.

If you would like to follow my path, you will have to visit Putnam County, New York. Markers have been placed along the route. A statue of me has been erected on Route 52, beside Gleneida Lake in Carmel. A smaller statue can be seen in Constitution Memorial Hall in Washington, DC. In 1975, a stamp was issued in my honor.

After the war, I married Edmond Odgen, a lawyer from Catskill. We had one son, Henry. I died in 1839, and was buried in Maple Avenue Cemetery near my father. "

Read more at Suite101: The Female Paul Revere http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/history_for_children/113431#ixzz0cyftfFUU

[Galileo Galilei]

Where is Paul Revere?? and the no-named farmers at concord and lexington (God Bless them all)

I like everyday people (that too believed they had a stake) like
http://www.lemen.com/rides.html


"Hi! My name is Sybil Ludington. I was born in 1761, in Fredericksburg, New York. (Now known as the Ludington section of Kent.) I was the oldest of twelve children. I spent most of my time taking care of my younger siblings and doing household chores. Those were the things that girls did in that era (time).
My world changed suddenly on April 26, 1777. I was 16 years old at the time and was putting the younger children to bed when a rider galloped up to our house. He informed us that British troops were burning the town of Danbury, Connecticut. It was only a few miles from our house.

My father was colonel of the local militia. His men were scattered over the countryside. Since the exhausted rider who had warned us of the British destruction could go no further, I convinced father to allow me to take my horse, Star, and ride to the homes of his men telling them to band together to defend our community.

Father finally agreed and I jumped on Star and rode 40 miles alerting his men. The night was dark and I rode alone, using only a stick to prod Star and knock on doors. It was quite a trip, but I succeeded in alerting all the men. They banded together and drove the British back to their ships.

The ride was kind of scary. After all, there was a war going on and I was alone with no one to protect me. Because of what I did, people hailed me as a heroine. I was just doing what I felt I had to do.

If you would like to follow my path, you will have to visit Putnam County, New York. Markers have been placed along the route. A statue of me has been erected on Route 52, beside Gleneida Lake in Carmel. A smaller statue can be seen in Constitution Memorial Hall in Washington, DC. In 1975, a stamp was issued in my honor.

After the war, I married Edmond Odgen, a lawyer from Catskill. We had one son, Henry. I died in 1839, and was buried in Maple Avenue Cemetery near my father. "

Read more at Suite101: The Female Paul Revere http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/history_for_children/113431#ixzz0cyftfFUU

I didn't put in Revere, because he was not listed on the wikipedia page. He did have enough google hits to qualify, however. If I had put him in, then Gerry would have been off. Gerry is a real Founding Father. He signed the Declaration of Independence and attended and spoke often at the Constitutional Convention. Later, he was Vice-President (with James Madison), and held other offices as well. He was a strong advocate for the right to bear arms, and is partially responsible for that amendment in the Bill-of-Rights.

Revere is usually classified as a 'Hero of the Revolution' rather than a 'Founding Father' He has no significant writings and did not hold any important offices that created our nation.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Routine treaty powers have always included aquisition of terrirtory. After wars are over, treaties divide up territory. Read Vattal.

The Louisiana Purchase was just a little different, it was land by purchase and consent, rather than land by conquest and the sword.

You have a fixation and are making pro-war argumants.


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.


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.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=183050&highlight=louisiana+purchase&page=19

Quoted from your previous identical thread about who was the greatest founding father. I like how you come up intellectually short on an argument and then come back and create an identical thread and try to re-argue your points. This is not the first time you have done it.

[Galileo Galilei]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=183050&highlight=louisiana+purchase&page=19

Quoted from your previous identical thread about who was the greatest founding father. I like how you come up intellectually short on an argument and then come back and create an identical thread and try to re-argue your points. This is not the first time you have done it.

The Notes of the Convention were secret in 1803. You don't think that secret, private notes should decide whether something is Constitutional, do you?

Madison himself even said that, so you are making pro-government secrecy arguments.

The treaty power regarding land was qualified as to splitting up of states, dividing them, and so on. It has nothing to do with adding new territory outside the existing states.

You are making lame anti-Jefferson arguments.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

The Notes of the Convention were secret in 1803. You don't think that secret, private notes should decide whether something is Constitutional, do you?

Madison himself even said that, so you are making pro-government secrecy arguments.

The treaty power regarding land was qualified as to splitting up of states, dividing them, and so on. It has nothing to do with adding new territory outside the existing states.

You are making lame anti-Jefferson arguments.

Like you, I do not base my interpretation of the constitution's expressly delegated powers on the word "typically". Either the power is expressly delegated or it isn't. In this case, it is not. Again you argue health care constitutional if done by treaty.

[Galileo Galilei]

Like you, I do not base my interpretation of the constitution's expressly delegated powers on the word "typically". Either the power is expressly delegated or it isn't. In this case, it is not. Again you argue health care constitutional if done by treaty.

The power to make treaties IS expressly delegated in the Constitution.

Since you favor the Articles of Confederation, why do you even care? If you think the Louisiana Purchase was unconstitutional, then what makes you think that the people in government would follow the text and delegated powers under the Articles of Confederation? The text of the AoC was already being violated in 1787, you know.

The people who opposed Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase were just big government hacks from the Federalist Party. You know, the same folks who brought us the Alien & Sedititon Acts and the 1st National Bank.

[hugolp]

We had no need for the Fed in 1913. Nor did the Federal government have a need. By that time, we had a giant, growing economy.

It is the fault of those who made the Fed happen in 1913, and those who made it grow that are at fault, not Alexander Hamilton.

In 1791, the federal governemt needed a central bank. The federal government had almost no income and we had a very small economy. That is why the congress passed the 1st bank and Washington signed it. It is as simple as that.

But they made it a temporary bank that could be eliminated. It was. Once the federal government got on its feet, it was taken out. That precedent was not heeded in 1913, nor has it been heeded since.

Also, governments do not always grow bigger, that is a myth.

The Roman Empire is much smaller today than it was in 300 AD. The empire of Genhis Khan & Kublai Khan is much smaller as well.

The people ultimately decide what direction the government moves in.

Sorry but that its not true. The bank was temporary as a excuse. If you read the bank director declarations and others they assumed the bank would be rechartered forever. In fact, the first central bank, the Bank of England was created this way. The king gave it a temporal charter but it kept re-chartering it in exchange for more credit, until it was made definitive.

Also, you dont need a central bank to grow the economy. For example, the second Bank of the United States, the one killed by Jackson, created a land bubble through credit expansion producing the consequent crash. In fact, that crash helped a lot Jackson to get rid of the bank because it made the people be wary about the bank (sound familiar :) ). Really, a central bank does not help the productive part of the economy, it hurst it. You dont need a central bank to grow a economy, it grows more without a central bank.

Also, the Roman/Italian goverment became smaller because it imploded, not because people made it smaller in a political process. What you are saying its streching reality. And I tend to agree you can make goverment smaller, its just difficult.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

The power to make treaties IS expressly delegated in the Constitution.

Since you favor the Articles of Confederation, why do you even care? If you think the Louisiana Purchase was unconstitutional, then what makes you think that the people in government would follow the text and delegated powers under the Articles of Confederation? The text of the AoC was already being violated in 1787, you know.

The people who opposed Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase were just big government hacks from the Federalist Party. You know, the same folks who brought us the Alien & Sedititon Acts amd the 1st National Bank.

Just because I oppose Jefferson's broad exercise of unconstitutional power does not mean I do not like Jefferson. On the other hand just because I am fond of Jefferson does not mean I am unwilling to consider his faults. I like Ron Paul but I do not like the fact Ron Paul supports Republican incumbents. Does that make me less of a Ron Paul supporter? Despite the masterpiece of personal attacks you are working on you bring nothing to the intellectual constitutional argument.

Why don't you make your personal masterpiece more credible with a stroke of Anarcho/Capitalism? Do I personally favor the AoC over the constitution? Sure. Do I favor no government over government? Naturally. I will always advocate less government than you.

But don't shit on my intelligence by trying to assert you are some great advocate of limited constitutional government and then try to pervert the meaning of the very document arguing for unlimited treaty powers that do not exist.

[Galileo Galilei]

Sorry but that its not true. The bank was temporary as a excuse. If you read the bank director declarations and others they assumed the bank would be rechartered forever. In fact, the first central bank, the Bank of England was created this way. The king gave it a temporal charter but it kept re-chartering it in exchange for more credit, until it was made definitive.

Also, the Roman/Italian goverment became smaller because it imploded, not because people made it smaller in a political process. What you are saying its streching reality. And I tend to agree you can make goverment smaller, its just difficult.

History proves it was a temporary bank. Madison ended it in 1811. The text of the law says it was temporary, 20 years. Just becasue the bank director wanted it perpetual, doesn't mean the lawmakers agreed.

The British Empire and the Spanish Empire have become smaller. Governments don't always get bigger. The People have a voice, too.

All through history governments get bigger or smaller, it goes back and forth.

The government of the ancient city of Ur did not implode, it just got smaller. So did Babylon.

Damascus was founded in 2500 BC. Just think how big its government would be today if the government had even a 1% annual growth rate?

Typically, the size of the government mirrors the size of the economy. When the government is small in relation to the economy, then the econmy grows, and bigger government follows later.

When the government is too big for the size of the economy, the economy levels off or shrinks, and eventually the size of the government follows.

Implosion occurs when the size of government increases while the economy shrinks. That is starting to happen here. But we have the People and the Constitution to fall back on.

[Galileo Galilei]

Also, you dont need a central bank to grow the economy. For example, the second Bank of the United States, the one killed by Jackson, created a land bubble through credit expansion producing the consequent crash. In fact, that crash helped a lot Jackson to get rid of the bank because it made the people be wary about the bank (sound familiar :) ). Really, a central bank does not help the productive part of the economy, it hurst it. You dont need a central bank to grow a economy, it grows more without a central bank.



I never said you need a central bank to grow the economy. You don't.

I said the initial government of 1789-91 needed the bank to get on its feet, in the opinion of a majority of the Founding Fathers.

Once the government was on its feet, the bank was not needed anymore. That's why we need to heed the lessons of the Founding Fathers. By the mid 1820s, the govenrnment was in fine shape. We need to end the Fed and follow the wisdom and principles of Hamilton, Madison, Washington, Jackson, and Jefferson.

[Galileo Galilei]

One more thing on the Louisiana Purchase, it was an anti-Empire deal.

All through history, empires annexed land via conquest. But Jefferson annexed land via consent w/ out conquest, in the spirit of modern constitutional republican liberty.

The people opposed to the purchase were basically those who did not want free trade for Americans on the Mississippi river.

Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe all deserve a great deal of credit for the Louisiana Purchase.

[BuddyRey]

I voted for Patrick Henry because he's reputed to be one of the most radically antifederalist founders, but then again, maybe there's someone who tops him and I've just never learned about him.

[Galileo Galilei]

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government."

– Patrick Henry

[Galileo Galilei]

So far we have:

64 votes for people from Virginia

4 votes for people from PA

4 votes for Thomas Paine

3 votes for Sarah Pailn's "all of them"

2 votes for people from NY

1 vote for MA

[jmdrake]

My favorite one is not on the list. (Crispus Attucks). He should be considered the founding father of those who snowballed Sean Hannity. :D

[Carole]

I am fond of Thomas Jefferson and others, but I selected John Jay because he promoted jury nullification.

[Galileo Galilei]

I am fond of Thomas Jefferson and others, but I selected John Jay because he promoted jury nullification.

James Madison also did a lot for jury nullification. When he introduced the Bill-of-Rights on June 8, 1789.

Madison proposed that the rights be inserted into the text, near the point where they applied, like in arrticle I, sections 8 & 9, rather than in a block at the end.

Madison said that if the rights were inserted there, they would be "considered by independent tribunals of justice".

That meant that juries and judges would see the rights right there, next to the delegations of powers, and would be more likely to consider them.

It was a big mistake to stick them at the end, where they have been less useful than they might have been.

[literatim]

I like John Adams, he kept us from getting in a war between France and Britain that would have destroyed our country. He also didn't get into the dirty politics that others were getting into at the time.

[Galileo Galilei]

I like John Adams, he kept us from getting in a war between France and Britain that would have destroyed our country. He also didn't get into the dirty politics that others were getting into at the time.

That's a good point. This issue was covered well in the HBO John Adams mini-series, have you seen it? Jefferson was excellent, too, there was a scene where Jefferson stared at Adams and glared; "You want to set us off to war with France!". Later, a jolted Adams decided to put his foot down, fired the warmongers, and stopped the war.

[Galileo Galilei]

Founding Fathers in the Hall-of-Fame:

Hall of Fame for Great Americans
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hall_of_Fame_for_Great_Americans

Elected 1900

George Washington
Benjamin Franklin
John Marshall
Thomas Jefferson
John Adams

Elected 1905

James Madison

Elected 1915

Alexander Hamilton

Elected 1920

Patrick Henry

Elected 1930

James Monroe

Elected 1945

Thomas Paine

Nominees not elected

John Jay
Samuel Adams

10 out of 102 elected Hall-of-Famers are Founding Fathers.