The Good Side of Alexander Hamilton

[Galileo Galilei]

The Good Side of Alexander Hamilton

I have just discovered that a good friend of mine, internationally famous 9/11 conspiracy theorist Dr. Kevin Barrett is a direct descendant of Alexander Hamilton.

To console him and his family, I come up with the list of good things about Hamilton. Please enjoy.

Alexander Hamilton....

* grew up on an obscure island in a remote ocean as an orphan. Hamilton and Thomas Paine are the two major Founders who had it the worst as children. Hamilton got ahead because he was brilliant. Some have argued that he was as smart, or even smarter than James Madison and/or Thomas Jefferson. Possibly this has rubbed off on his direct descendant Kevin Barrett.

* was a war hero of the Revolution. He lead infantry charges at Yorktown, operated the artillery, and was George Washington's chief assistant. Also took part in the Crossing of the Delaware, and fought at the Battle of Monmouth. Not many of the major Founders actually fought in the war, Washington, James Monroe, and John Marshall excepted.

* wrote 51 of the Federalist Papers, which argue for a small, limited government (unfortunately, Hamilton often did not follow what he wrote). He organized the project as well and saw to the actual printing of both he newspaper versions and the book versions. The Federalist Papers are Hamilton's best known, most read, and most influential legacy. More people know about the Federalist Papers, than know about his banking ideas.

* he never owned slaves.

* in defense of Hamilton's nationalism, it can be argued that he was not attached to any one particular state, as he came to America as a teenager, and then spent most of his early years in the Revolutionary war, when nationalism ran high as the states worked together to defeat the evil British Empire. All the other major Founders who held high office were born and raised in a particular state with their families, and were also older than Hamilton, hence they remembered life in America before the Revolution.

* Hamilton helped organize the Constitutional Convention (with James Madison). He also signed the Constitution.

* Hamilton helped organize the Annapolis Convention, the forerunner of the Constitutional Convention. He wrote (with James Madison) the proclamation calling for a new convention (the Constitutional Convention).

* Hamilton was a key player at the New York ratifying convention, which voted 30-27 to ratify the Constitution.

* Hamilton served in the Continental congress.

* In 1800, Hamilton was critical to Thomas Jefferson's election. He persuaded a Delaware delegate, James Bayard to switch his vote and vote for Jefferson. The election had been thrown to the House of Representatives.

* the idea that Hamilton jump-started the nation's economy is a myth. But what is true is that he organized the federal government's finances so it could function. This included raising enough money to pay for an ambassador to France, England and Spain, and to start paying back the Revolutionary War veterans.

** in defense of Hamilton's central bank:

1) many things blamed on Hamilton should be blamed on those who came later.

2) the bank was temporary, for only 20 years. If this precedent had been followed, the Fed would have been abolished in 1933.

3) the bank did not issue fiat currency. So the Fed violates a basic Hamilton principle of banking

4) the bank was 20% publicly owned.

5) the bank did not operate in utter secrecy.

6) the bank did not do bailouts.

7) corruption in the bank was low by today's standards.

8) George Washington signed the bank bill. 39 members of the House voted for the bank bill. The Senate voted for the bank bill. VP John Adams and the Supreme Court also supported the bank bill. So you cannot place all the blame for the bank bill on Alexander Hamilton.

:)

[emazur]

Hamilton on gold and paper money (source: Gold - The Once and Future Money p. 106-107. Typed out by hand I might have some typos):

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 that prohibition ought not to be disregarded 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 applicable to the like emissions by the States, separately, 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 dangerous 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 emissions, would rarely fail, in any such emergency, to indulge itself too far in the employment of 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 occasion 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 standard 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 should be issued than is necessary, it will return upon the bank.

[1000-points-of-fright]

For all the cries around here of Hamilton being a big government statist, I'd still rather have a congress full of Hamiltons than 99% of the clowns we have now. He may have been the statist among the founders, but by today's standards he's practically a libertarian.

[Pericles]

For all the cries around here of Hamilton being a big government statist, I'd still rather have a congress full of Hamiltons than 99% of the clowns we have now. He may have been the statist among the founders, but by today's standards he's practically a libertarian.

We have a winner!

[tmosley]

For all the cries around here of Hamilton being a big government statist, I'd still rather have a congress full of Hamiltons than 99% of the clowns we have now. He may have been the statist among the founders, but by today's standards he's practically a libertarian.

Uhhhhh, Hamilton wanted an executive branch with absolute power.

So no. Very, very no.

[Pericles]

Uhhhhh, Hamilton wanted an executive branch with absolute power.

So no. Very, very no.

The same Hamilton wrote this on the militia:

"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well digested plan should as soon as possible be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate size upon such principles as will really fit it for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan it will be possible to have an excellent body of well trained militia ready to take the field whenever the defence of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments; but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army; the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

[tmosley]

The same Hamilton wrote this on the militia:

"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well digested plan should as soon as possible be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate size upon such principles as will really fit it for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan it will be possible to have an excellent body of well trained militia ready to take the field whenever the defence of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments; but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army; the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

So? The US didn't have the resources to field a major army, so of course he wanted a militia.

As soon as that changed, he'd have had men in red jackets on every street corner.

All statists are the same, and can be relied upon to handle power in the exact same way. Always.

[Galileo Galilei]

Uhhhhh, Hamilton wanted an executive branch with absolute power.

So no. Very, very no.

This is simply untrue.

The Federalist Papers : No. 70
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed70.asp

It should also be noted that the US president under the Constitution has much less power than the Commander in Chief of the Army under the Articles of Confederation.

[Matt Collins]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/hamiltons-curse.jpg (http://www.amazon.com/Hamiltons-Curse-Jeffersons-Revolution-Americans/dp/0307382842/lewrockwell/)
http://www.amazon.com/Hamiltons-Curse-Jeffersons-Revolution-Americans/dp/0307382842/lewrockwell/ (http://www.amazon.com/Hamiltons-Curse-Jeffersons-Revolution-Americans/dp/0307382842/lewrockwell/)



.

[Galileo Galilei]

We have a winner!

bingo!

[Galileo Galilei]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/hamiltons-curse.jpg (http://www.amazon.com/Hamiltons-Curse-Jeffersons-Revolution-Americans/dp/0307382842/lewrockwell/)
http://www.amazon.com/Hamiltons-Curse-Jeffersons-Revolution-Americans/dp/0307382842/lewrockwell/ (http://www.amazon.com/Hamiltons-Curse-Jeffersons-Revolution-Americans/dp/0307382842/lewrockwell/)



.


This book blames Hamilton for stuff that happened in 1913. I read it and it is good with a lot of facts. But it is way out of line in some opinions. Hamilton put a 20-year limit on the bank. If that precedent had been followed, we would have ended the Fed in 1933. Then the great depression would have ended sooner.

[Matt Collins]

Hamilton put a 20-year limit on the bank. If that precedent had been followed, we would have ended the Fed in 1933. Then the great depression would have ended sooner.The bank was de facto unconstitutional to begin with. :rolleyes:

I think there was an expiration limit on the Patriot Act too :mad:

[JeNNiF00F00]

Fuck Hamilton.

[Galileo Galilei]

The bank was de facto unconstitutional to begin with. :rolleyes:

I think there was an expiration limit on the Patriot Act too :mad:

I'd say it is a gray area. It depends on your interpretation of the necessary and proper clause in conjuntion with the clause regarding money.

All of the major Founding Fathers including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, and others thought it was constitutional, but with limits.

Since it is political idiocy to go against Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison, a better strategy is to oppose the bank on policy grounds. Also, the Founding Fathers set Constitutional limits on the power of the bank. Madison, in his veto of the bank in 1815 layed out what was Constitutional and what was not.

According to the Founding Fathers, a central bank is Constitutional if it has a temporary term, doesn't print fiat currency, isn't secret, is partially owned by the government, and doesn't do bailouts.

[Galileo Galilei]

Fuck Hamilton.

Hamilton was a hero of the Revolutionary War. He charged into British lines. Spitting on American Patriots is no way to treat our Founding Fathers.

[Matt Collins]

I'd say it is a gray area. It depends on your interpretation of the necessary and proper clause in conjuntion with the clause regarding money.No it's not.

"To coin money and regulate the value thereof" has nothing to do with setting up a central bank! :rolleyes:

Neither does "borrowing money" either.


According to the Founding Fathers, a central bank is Constitutional if it has a temporary term, doesn't print fiat currency, isn't secret, is partially owned by the government, and doesn't do bailouts.Then what function would it serve? :confused:

[Galileo Galilei]

No it's not.

"To coin money and regulate the value thereof" has nothing to do with setting up a central bank! :rolleyes:

Neither does "borrowing money" either.

Then what function would it serve? :confused:

Gee, you're smarter than George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and James Madison. Do you hate America, too?

[Matt Collins]

Do you hate America, too?No, but I know how to read :rolleyes:

[Galileo Galilei]

No, but I know how to read :rolleyes:

Do you think it is smart to directly oppose George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison on banking policies? I also question whether you actually read what I wrote. Based on the Founding Fathers, the Fed is unconstitutional AND bad policy. But you have to go to the extreme, which is just plain stupid. You wonder why Ron Paul supporters get called kooks? Now you know.

[Matt Collins]

Do you think it is smart to directly oppose George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison on banking policies?They are human too. Jefferson, the best of the bunch, did some things that weren't exactly clearly Constitutional while he was President.



you have to go to the extreme, which is just plain stupid. You wonder why Ron Paul supporters get called kooks? Now you know.Citing the Constitution is "extreme" :confused::confused::confused: :rolleyes::rolleyes:

I never thought I would read those words on here :(


.

[John Taylor]

I'd say it is a gray area. It depends on your interpretation of the necessary and proper clause in conjuntion with the clause regarding money.

All of the major Founding Fathers including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, and others thought it was constitutional, but with limits.

Since it is political idiocy to go against Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison, a better strategy is to oppose the bank on policy grounds. Also, the Founding Fathers set Constitutional limits on the power of the bank. Madison, in his veto of the bank in 1815 layed out what was Constitutional and what was not.

According to the Founding Fathers, a central bank is Constitutional if it has a temporary term, doesn't print fiat currency, isn't secret, is partially owned by the government, and doesn't do bailouts.

This is historically incorrect. Most of the major founding fathers, from James Madison, John Randolph, John Taylor, Thomas Jefferson, and Spencer Roane, all maintained that the Bank of the United States was unconstitutional.

[John Taylor]

Do you think it is smart to directly oppose George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison on banking policies? I also question whether you actually read what I wrote. Based on the Founding Fathers, the Fed is unconstitutional AND bad policy. But you have to go to the extreme, which is just plain stupid. You wonder why Ron Paul supporters get called kooks? Now you know.

James Madison WROTE A VETO MESSAGE for George Washington for the First Bank of the United States, and only signed the second bank into existence because of the War of 1812. Truly, war is the health of the state.

[Aratus]

the wisest thing that can be said about hamilton's federalism
is that he was george washington's spike jones in that he
was a very talented one-man-band who RAN everything!!!

[John Taylor]

[B]

:)

The only good side of Alexander Hamilton is the side that faced God after he was shot.

[John Taylor]

the wisest thing that can be said about hamilton's federalism
is that he was george washington's spike jones in that he
was a very talented one-man-band who RAN everything!!!

Well, what do you know, we owe the entire republic to Alexander Hamilton, that great hero of the Revolution!!! Aide de Camp to Washington nothing, he really ran everything!!!

[Aratus]

that derned brat of a scottish laird, yes... as john adams once less euphemistically said...

[Aratus]

hense jefferson's toyings with a minimalism... as a response to washington's lofty daydreaming

[Galileo Galilei]

They are human too. Jefferson, the best of the bunch, did some things that weren't exactly clearly Constitutional while he was President.


Citing the Constitution is "extreme" :confused::confused::confused: :rolleyes::rolleyes:

I never thought I would read those words on here :(


.

Citing the Constitution is not extreme, but whether a bank can be used to regulate the value of currency is a gray area. Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and Madison all thought that the bank was necessary under the necessary and proper clause. They lived there then. They decided it was necessary. Now you come along 200 years later and tell them it was not necessary.

You also undermine attempts to end the Fed. Under the principles of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and yes, even Hamilton, today's Fed is both unconstitutional and bad policy. You just have an unhealthy obcession about Hamilton it seems.

[John Taylor]

Citing the Constitution is not extreme, but whether a bank can be used to regulate the value of currency is a gray area. Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and Madison all thought that the bank was necessary under the necessary and proper clause. They lived there then. They decided it was necessary. Now you come along 200 years later and tell them it was not necessary.

You also undermine attempts to end the Fed. Under the principles of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and yes, even Hamilton, today's Fed is both unconstitutional and bad policy. You just have an unhealthy obcession about Hamilton it seems.

Jefferson and Madison wrote extensively, as did their intellectual constitutional champion John Taylor of Caroline, regarding the UNCONSTITUTIONALITY of the Bank of the United States.

I'm afraid you are factually fatuous.

[Galileo Galilei]

This is historically incorrect. Most of the major founding fathers, from James Madison, John Randolph, John Taylor, Thomas Jefferson, and Spencer Roane, all maintained that the Bank of the United States was unconstitutional.

Totally wrong.

James Madison signed a bank bill. Jefferson approved of the 1st bank when he was president, and didn't object when the 2nd bank was made. All of the major Founding Fathers supported the bank, including others I have not mentioned like James Monroe, John Marshall, and JQ Adams. Other heroes of the early Republic who supported the bank were Davvy Crockett, Sam Houston, Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, and John Calhoun.

John Taylor was a slaveocrat, who actually argued that slavey was a good thing, so I could care less what he said. Taylor was evil.

Spencer Roane is a pretty weak example of a Foubnding Father.

OK, you got me, John Randolph was against the bank.

You are totally missing the boat on this. NONE of the Founding fathers supported a perpetual national bank. They supported a temporary bank so we could pay back the heroes of our wars of independence. They supported a temporay bank that did not do bailouts, issue fiat currency, or operate in utter secrecy. These are the true arguments. What you are doing is framing the question so the Fed supporters can claim the support of the Founding fathers. I reject that strategy. it is a loser.

[Matt Collins]

Citing the Constitution is not extreme, but whether a bank can be used to regulate the value of currency is a gray area.It says "Congress may...." It doesn't say that Congress can pass that authority on to anyone else.



Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and Madison all thought that the bank was necessary under the necessary and proper clause. They lived there then. They decided it was necessary..Cite a link? :confused: :rolleyes:

[Galileo Galilei]

James Madison WROTE A VETO MESSAGE for George Washington for the First Bank of the United States, and only signed the second bank into existence because of the War of 1812. Truly, war is the health of the state.

Madison changed his mind. If you are going to jump into the arena and argue the Constitution, yu'd better have James Madison on your side. if you don't, you lose. Your argument is a loser. You've also got George Washington against you, which makes you a two-time loser; the Father of our Country and the Father of the Constitution both against your position. Nice work, buddy.

You also make pro-empire remarks about the war of 1812. You apparently think its OK for a giant empire to pick on, beat up and pillage a small republic. You think what we do to Iran is OK, as well? The war of 1812 led to more freedopm and prosperity than any other single event in US history. It got an evil empire off our back, cleared the Great Lakes of enemy military forts and a belligerent navy, led to free trade practically everywhere, and led to the Erie Canal which is the most important economic building project in human history.

The post-war prosperity allowed us to pay back our heroes who fought for independence in both wars, and we paid off the national debt and closed the bank in 1833. Remember, it was a temporay bank? Did you forget about that?

[Galileo Galilei]

The only good side of Alexander Hamilton is the side that faced God after he was shot.

Interesting that you tout a slave-o-crat for your handle. John Taylor said slavery was a great thing. Let me get this straight; you oppose bank slavery, but support it on racial grounds?

[John Taylor]

Totally wrong.

James Madison signed a bank bill. Jefferson approved of the 1st bank when he was president, and didn't object when the 2nd bank was made. All of the major Founding Fathers supported the bank, including others I have not mentioned like James Monroe, John Marshall, and JQ Adams. Other heroes of the early Republic who supported the bank were Davvy Crockett, Sam Houston, Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, and John Calhoun.

John Taylor was a slaveocrat, who actually argued that slavey was a good thing, so I could care less what he said. Taylor was evil.

Spencer Roane is a pretty weak example of a Foubnding Father.

OK, you got me, John Randolph was against the bank.

You are totally missing the boat on this. NONE of the Founding fathers supported a perpetual national bank. They supported a temporary bank so we could pay back the heroes of our wars of independence. They supported a temporay bank that did not do bailouts, issue fiat currency, or operate in utter secrecy. These are the true arguments. What you are doing is framing the question so the Fed supporters can claim the support of the Founding fathers. I reject that strategy. it is a loser.

Forgive me for saying this, but I believe you are TOTALLY WRONG historically, and in terms of your analysis.

1) James Madison drafted a veto message for President George Washington when Alexander Hamilton fathered a proposal for a national bank. Madison objected that a bank was not specifically authorized in the Constitution, and urged President George Washington to veto it.


2) President Washington asked Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson to outline the constitutional argument against the Bank of the United States (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bank-tj.asp). Jefferson reiterated the strict constructionist theory that Congress can only take actions that are specifically enumerated or expressed in the Constitution, and that chartering a bank is not one of those actions, and as such, is unconstitutional.

3) James Monroe did most emphatically NOT support the constitutionality of the Bank of the United States.

4). John Marshall, JQ Adams, Daniel Webster, and Henry Clay were all pro-big government Whigs or were residual High Federalists.

5) John C. Calhoun vehemently opposed the Bank of the United States, and served as President Andrew Jackson's Vice President when the Second Bank was killed.

6) John Taylor was not a slaveocrat, and did not argue that slavery was a good thing. I think you are confusing him with John C. Calhoun and his Disquisition on Government. When Thomas Jefferson was asked to write out his constitutional construction for those following in generations to come, Jefferson replied that Senator Taylor had already written it. Constructions Construed, and Constitutions Vindicated. (http://www.constitution.org/jt/cccv.htm) Senator Taylor's books arguing against the constitutionality of the Bank were the most influential books in the Jeffersonian-Jacksonian Democratic Party. Read Tyranny Unmasked (http://www.constitution.org/jt/tyr_un.htm).

7) Spencer Roane was the Chief Judge of the Virginia Court of Appeals, and led the philosophical resistance to the aggrandizement of federal authority. He was a contemporary of John Marshalls, and was his PRIMARY intellectual and legal rival.

[John Taylor]

Interesting that you tout a slave-o-crat for your handle. John Taylor said slavery was a great thing. Let me get this straight; you oppose bank slavery, but support it on racial grounds?

I ask for you to apologize.

[ClayTrainor]

YouTube - Jefferson Vs. Hamilton :: Freedom Vs. Big Government (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzH7mGt0VDE)

[John Taylor]

Madison changed his mind. If you are going to jump into the arena and argue the Constitution, yu'd better have James Madison on your side. if you don't, you lose. Your argument is a loser. You've also got George Washington against you, which makes you a two-time loser; the Father of our Country and the Father of the Constitution both against your position. Nice work, buddy.

You also make pro-empire remarks about the war of 1812. You apparently think its OK for a giant empire to pick on, beat up and pillage a small republic. You think what we do to Iran is OK, as well? The war of 1812 led to more freedopm and prosperity than any other single event in US history. It got an evil empire off our back, cleared the Great Lakes of enemy military forts and a belligerent navy, led to free trade practically everywhere, and led to the Erie Canal which is the most important economic building project in human history.

The post-war prosperity allowed us to pay back our heroes who fought for independence in both wars, and we paid off the national debt and closed the bank in 1833. Remember, it was a temporay bank? Did you forget about that?

Madison opposed the Bank when he was not personally benefited from the Bank, and supported it later as a necessary war measure to combat the British during the War of 1812. That makes him an opportunist at worst. The fact is, 4 years after drafting the constitution, he OPPOSED the bank on constitutional grounds. 25 years later he signed the bill because he didn't want his presidency to fail...

I'm not going to dignify the rest of your smears with a reply, with the exception of your comment regarding the Erie Canal.

There were thousands of canals commissioned and paid for by the American taxpayer throughout the early 19th century, resulting in the bankruptcy of many states when the canals inevitably failed to produce the desired utopian paradises they were portended to be. You need to read Burt Folsom's book Empire Builders: How Michigan Entrepreneurs Helped Make America Great (http://www.amazon.com/Empire-Builders-Michigan-Entrepreneurs-America/dp/1890394068).

The Erie Canal was one of the few of the thousands of "internal improvement" projects to be undertaken to ever make a profit. The rest bankrupted their states, almost the federal government, and caused many states, including Michigan, to pass new constitutions which EXPLICITLY forbade using taxpayer monies on projects like internal improvements and the "American system" of that old statist, Henry Clay.

[John Taylor]

TO THE PUBLICK. (http://www.constitution.org/jt/cccv.htm)

The crisis has come, when the following work "may do the state some service."

The Missouri Question is probably not yet closed. The principle, on which it turns, is certainly not settled. Further attempts are to be made to wrest from the new states, about to enter into the American confederacy, the power of regulating their own concerns. — The Tariff question is again to be agitated. — It is time to bring the policy and the power of a legislature's interfering with the judicial functions to the bar of publick opinion. — The usurpation of a federal power over roads and canals is again to be attempted, and again to be reprobated. — That gigantick institution, the Bank of the United States, which, while yet in the green tree, was proclaimed by the republicans a breach of the constitution, "stands now upon its bond;" but that charter, bad as it is, has been justified by the supreme court of the United States, on principles so bold and alarming, that no man who loves the constitution can fold his arms in apathy upon the subject. Those principles, so boldly uttered from the highest judicial tribunal in the United States, are calculated to give the tone to an acquiescent people, to change the whole face of our government, and to generate a thousand measures, which the framers of the constitution never anticipated. That decision

—— will be recorded for a precedent,
And many an error by the same example
May rush into the state. It cannot be.

Against such a decision, it becomes every man, who values the constitution, to raise his voice.

In truth, we have arrived at a crisis, when the first principles of the government and some of the dearest rights of the states are threatened with being utterly ground into dust and ashes. When we look to the original form of the government, we are struck with its novelty and beauty. It presents to us one of the grandest experiments that ever was made in political science. We see in it an attempt to ascertain, how far power could be so distributed between two governments, as to prevent an excessive concentration and consequent abuse of it in one set of bands; at the same time, that so much power was conveyed to each, as to enable them to accomplish the objects to which each of them was best adapted. The federal government was to watch over our foreign relations; that of the states, was particularly to take care of our internal concerns. The great secret was, to have these functions so wisely regulated, as to prevent the general government from rushing into consolidation; and the states, into a dissolution of the union. The first extreme would infallibly conduct us to great oppression, and probably to monarchy : the last would subject us to insults and injuries from abroad, to contentions and bloodshed at home. To avoid these extremes, we should never have lost sight of the true spirit of the federal constitution. To interpret it wisely, we should have rigidly adhered to the principle, laid down by George Clinton, when he, from the chair of the senate of the United States, gave the casting voice against the renewal of the first bank charter: "In the course of a long life, I have found that government is not to be strengthened by the assumption of doubtful powers, but a wise and energetick execution of those which are incontestable; the former never fails to produce suspicion and distrust, whilst the latter inspires respect and confidence. If, however, on fair experience, the powers vested in the government shall be found incompetent to the attainment of the objects for which it was instituted, the constitution happily furnishes the means for remedying the evil by amendment." This maxim deserves to be written in letters of gold upon the wall of the capitol in Washington.
But, we have been almost deaf to the voice of wisdom. We have nearly forgotten the principles of our fathers. In repeated instances, we have suffered the constitution to be trodden under foot. We have been lately rushing rapidly towards the gulph of consolidation. We have even seen the purest triumphs of the republican party in 1800-1, (when an alien and sedition law were shivered into atoms by an indignant people,) almost forgotten. We have seen a decision promulgated from the federal bench, which is calculated to sweep down the dearest rights of the states. The infatuation of the day has been carried so far, that we have just seen an attempt made, and bolstered up by the seriatim opinion of five eminent counsellors, to humble the powers of the state governments at the feet of the District of Columbia!

[1000-points-of-fright]

Interesting that you tout a slave-o-crat for your handle. John Taylor said slavery was a great thing.

I just thought the bass player for Duran Duran was posting on our forum.

[John Taylor]

I just thought the bass player for Duran Duran was posting on our forum.

Strict construction of the constitution and a solid bass line. It's what I do best.

[Galileo Galilei]

It says "Congress may...." It doesn't say that Congress can pass that authority on to anyone else.

So what are you tryign to say? Do congressmne have to actually go down to the docks and collect the tariffs, or can someone else do it for them?


Cite a link? :confused: :rolleyes:

Well, we know that Washington signed the bank bill. He went through the arguments of Madison and Hamilton, and then signed it. So just look up Hamilton's argument. As for Adams, I don't have a link in front of me, but I know he supported Washington's decision.

Madison changed his mind on the bank to a limited extent:

(I'm sorry, but it's difficult to engage in a rational disucussion about banking in this forum)

Veto Message on the National Bank (January 30, 1815)
James Madison
http://millercenter.org/scripps/archive/speeches/detail/3626

Basically, Madison decided that a precedent had been set by George Washington.

[another amusing aspect of this forum is the constant attacks against Hamilton, while ignoring that George Washington signed the bank bill. I guess even the people here are smart enough to figure out that attacking Washington is not a good strategy.]

Madison decided that a bank limited by the powers of the 1st bank was constitutional, so he vetoed this bank bill, because it expanded the powers of the bank. Madison later then signed a bank bill almost exactly the same as the 1st bank. I do not have the links in fron of me, but you can look it up easily, it is basic information.

So that means a bank that does not issue fiat currency, does not do bailouts, and does not operate in utter secrey, and has a limited term of no more than 20 years is Constitutional. (among other things)

But whether a bank is Constitutional does not mean it is good policy.

The first bank was needed to establish a functional government that could do basic things like pay for ambassadors to France and England and start to pay back heroes of the revolution.

But 20 years later, these bills still had not been paid, thanks to France, England, and the Barabary Pirates pillaging our commerce. Madison let the bank expire anyway, even though he knew war was coming.

Madison strategically killed the bank during the entire war of 1812, a very good thing for small government advocates.

But after the war, bills had to be paid, so a new temporary bank was begun.

But there was a differenc after the War of 1812, from after the Revolutionary War; after the War of 1812 we had much more prosperity because we had free trade. So we were able to pay the bills off in less than 20 years, whereas before we still weren't done after 20 years.

In 1832, Andrew Jackson had paid off the national debt, and was up for re-election (against Henry Clay). Jackson's private secretary was Nicholas Trist from 1828-1834. Trist was in the middle of everything Jackson did and was his chief advisor, Jackson made little use of his cabinet. Trist was also a lifelong disciple of James Madison. Trist spent his entire life reading about Madison, learning about Madison, and promoting Madison's ideas and legacy. So Jackson was getitng Madison's advice secondhand.

[Trist was the grandson of Mary House of Philadephia, where Madison sayed during the Constitutional Convention and whenever he visited Philly]

But Jackson wanted to end the national bank. As the debt had been paid off the bank had grown corrupt (it is easier to become a parasite when you have gigantic economic growth). There was no need for the bank anymore. The reason the Founding Fathers had given for the need of the bank no longer applied

So what did Jackson do? In the summer of 1832, he went to Virginia to pay a personal visit to Madison. Jackson was afraid that Madison would oppose his plan to end the bank and endorse Clay (who also came to visit Madison at around the same time)

But to Jackson's delight, Madison agreed it was time to end the bank, even though Madison had signed the bank bill in 1816.

This is the true history of the national bank. We had better learn it, because after we audit the Fed, we will then be pushing to end the Fed, or at least reduce its powers. Bernake and his lackeys will say that Washington and Madison signed bank bills, that that means the Fed is OK and Constitutional. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

[Matt Collins]

So what are you tryign to say? Do congressmne have to actually go down to the docks and collect the tariffs, or can someone else do it for them?Of course not. They have the government do it for them. The Fed is not a governmental entity.

[Galileo Galilei]

Madison opposed the Bank when he was not personally benefited from the Bank, and supported it later as a necessary war measure to combat the British during the War of 1812. That makes him an opportunist at worst. The fact is, 4 years after drafting the constitution, he OPPOSED the bank on constitutional grounds. 25 years later he signed the bill because he didn't want his presidency to fail...

I'm not going to dignify the rest of your smears with a reply, with the exception of your comment regarding the Erie Canal.

There were thousands of canals commissioned and paid for by the American taxpayer throughout the early 19th century, resulting in the bankruptcy of many states when the canals inevitably failed to produce the desired utopian paradises they were portended to be. You need to read Burt Folsom's book Empire Builders: How Michigan Entrepreneurs Helped Make America Great (http://www.amazon.com/Empire-Builders-Michigan-Entrepreneurs-America/dp/1890394068).

The Erie Canal was one of the few of the thousands of "internal improvement" projects to be undertaken to ever make a profit. The rest bankrupted their states, almost the federal government, and caused many states, including Michigan, to pass new constitutions which EXPLICITLY forbade using taxpayer monies on projects like internal improvements and the "American system" of that old statist, Henry Clay.

There was no bank during the war of 1812. You are totally wrong. You also have an unhealthy anti-James Madison bias.

You also totally didn't understand what I said about the Erie Canal. The Erie Canal was economically sucessful because of the War of 1812. It allowed shipping from the Great Lakes to New York City. But before the war of 1812, the Britsh controlled the Great Lakes and the French & British controlled the Atlantic ocean.

The Erie Canal became economically successful because of the freedom we gained from the war of 1812. You continually make pro-empire comments here. In 1812, France was an empire and Britain was an empire, the US was a free democratic & constitutional republic. Your obsession with attacking everything American done after 1787 has clouded your judgement.

[Galileo Galilei]

I ask for you to apologize.

American pro-slavery activists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_pro-slavery_activists

"John Taylor of Caroline"


Taylor wrote in defense of slavery and called for the deportation of free African Americans. He criticized Thomas Jefferson's ambivalence towards slavery in Notes on the State of Virginia. Taylor agreed with Jefferson that the institution was an evil, but argued that it was "incapable of removal, and only within reach of palliation," and took issue with Jefferson's repeated references to the specific cruelties of slavery, arguing that "slaves are docile, useful and happy, if they are well managed," and that "the individual is restrained by his property in the slave, and susceptible of humanity . . . . Religion assails him both with her blandishments and terrours. It indissolubly binds his, and his slaves happiness or misery together." His approach, defending the preservation of slavery as it was and claiming that proper management could benefit the slave as well as the master, anticipated the more emphatic defenses of slavery as a "positive good" by later writers such as John C. Calhoun, Edmund Ruffin, and George Fitzhugh.

Nice, a pro-slavery activist.

[John Taylor]

There was no bank during the war of 1812. You are totally wrong. You also have an unhealthy anti-James Madison bias.

You also totally didn't understand what I said about the Erie Canal. The Erie Canal was economically sucessful because of the War of 1812. It allowed shipping from the Great Lakes to New York City. But before the war of 1812, the Britsh controlled the Great Lakes and the French & British controlled the Atlantic ocean.

The Erie Canal became economically successful because of the freedom we gained from the war of 1812. You continually make pro-empire comments here. In 1812, France was an empire and Britain was an empire, the US was a free democratic & constitutional republic. Your obsession with attacking everything American done after 1787 has clouded your judgement.

Actually it is you who is entirely wrong. The Second Bank of the United States was created precisely to deal with the financial repercussions of the War of 1812. I never said that there was a bank during the war of 1812. I don't have any unhealthy disregard for Mr. Madison. I like him a great deal as a matter of fact, though his original conception of what the United States is far more centralizing that what our constitution maintains.

The freedom we gained as a result of INVADING Canada in 1812? Tell me more about this freedom...

The fact is, a national bank IS unconstitutional. Period. It is not necessary and proper to carrying out into execution any of the enumerated powers of the federal government, and if a construction allowing it is adopted, as you urge, it will in fact continue to empower the federal government to circumvent almost all of the remaining restrictions on federal authority through the use of equally elastic interpretations of other matters of "great national interest".

[John Taylor]

American pro-slavery activists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_pro-slavery_activists

"John Taylor of Caroline"



Nice, a pro-slavery activist.

"Taylor agreed with Jefferson that the institution was an evil"

Again, I ask for your apology. Immediately.

[John Taylor]

American pro-slavery activists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_pro-slavery_activists

"John Taylor of Caroline"



Nice, a pro-slavery activist.

Abraham Lincoln called for the deporation of former slaves back to Africa... I'm sure that renders him a "slavery activist" as well?

[Galileo Galilei]

To interpret it wisely, we should have rigidly adhered to the principle, laid down by George Clinton

Nice. George Clinton opposed the Constitution, just like the neocons and liberals today oppose it.

You have the gameplan down for the neocon strategy.

[John Taylor]

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

"If the means to which the government of the union may resort for executing the power confided to it, are unlimited, it may easily select such as will impair or destroy the powers confided to the state governments." Jefferson, who noted that "Col. Taylor and myself have rarely, if ever, differed in any political principle of importance," considered Construction Construed and Constitutions Vindicated "the most logical retraction of our governments to the original and true principles of the Constitution creating them, which has appeared since the adoption of the instrument."

Constructions Construed and Constitution's Vindicated is the primary work of the strict constructionists attack on the constitutionality of the Bank of the United States.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

[Galileo Galilei]

3) James Monroe did most emphatically NOT support the constitutionality of the Bank of the United States.



Monroe supported the bank when he was president. He even appointed Nicholas Biddle to run it.

Monroe also supported the bank when Jefferson and Madison were president.

[John Taylor]

Monroe supported the bank when he was president. He even appointed Nicholas Biddle to run it.

Monroe also supported the bank when Jefferson and Madison were president.

He had no authority to destroy the bank, an congressional creation, after it was chartered. Sorry.

[Galileo Galilei]

Strict construction of the constitution and a solid bass line. It's what I do best.

That's another bad strategy because it connotes a special interpretation.

I advocate that the Constitution be followed according to the plain language of the text, consulting the Founding Fathers and case law for gray areas.

Strict construction also fails because it does not work well with executive or judicial powers, it only works OK with legislative powers.

[John Taylor]

Nice. George Clinton opposed the Constitution, just like the neocons and liberals today oppose it.

You have the gameplan down for the neocon strategy.

Haha, you are incredible!!! Comparing the Anti-Federalists to the neo-conservatives and liberals who oppose the constitution because it restricts government too much???? The Anti-Federalists like George Clinton, Patrick Henry, John Taylor and John Randolph did so because it granted too much power to the federal government, not because it granted too little.

Get real.

[John Taylor]

That's another bad strategy because it connotes a special interpretation.

I advocate that the Constitution be followed according to the plain language of the text, consulting the Founding Fathers and case law for gray areas.

Strict construction also fails because it does not work well with executive or judicial powers, it only works OK with legislative powers.

Nonsense, it means that, like all grants of authority in a principle-agent relationship, the contractual agreement is to be construed strictly, in favor of the principle enumerating the power.

Strict construction works just fine in the judicial and in the executive branches as well, your protestations notwithstanding. To interpret something according to the plain meaning of the text is to interpret it strictly in the vast majority of cases, and in the difficult ones, analysis will have to be done to determine the original meaning of the power grant in order to determine the constitutional limits.

[Galileo Galilei]

Actually it is you who is entirely wrong. The Second Bank of the United States was created precisely to deal with the financial repercussions of the War of 1812. I never said that there was a bank during the war of 1812. I don't have any unhealthy disregard for Mr. Madison. I like him a great deal as a matter of fact, though his original conception of what the United States is far more centralizing that what our constitution maintains.

The freedom we gained as a result of INVADING Canada in 1812? Tell me more about this freedom...

The fact is, a national bank IS unconstitutional. Period. It is not necessary and proper to carrying out into execution any of the enumerated powers of the federal government, and if a construction allowing it is adopted, as you urge, it will in fact continue to empower the federal government to circumvent almost all of the remaining restrictions on federal authority through the use of equally elastic interpretations of other matters of "great national interest".

CANADA in 1812 = the British Empire.

The British had military forts in Canada that were supposed to be vacated after the Treaty of Paris (1783). As of 1812, these belligerent forts was still there in violation of the Treaty. The British did not allow people to trade freely on the Great Lakes either. They were a big bully. They were kidnapping thousands of innocent American sna d seizing hundreds of American ships. You are making pro-empire and now pro-military arguments.

You basically have a fixation that because people like Bush and Clinton or FDR lie today about wars, then Madison must have lied about war 200 years ago. That's totally illogical.

Sorry, the 1st national bank was deemed Constitutional by the consensus of the Founding Fathers who decided that it was necessary and proper for the regulation of the value of currency. I agree this is a grray area, but I will not overule George Washingtom, who spent a lot of time thinking about his decision, or the House and Senate who debated it extensively. I know you think you are smarter than the Founding fathers, but you are not. Sorry.

All you are doing is helping Bernake.

[John Taylor]

CANADA in 1812 = the British Empire.

The British had military forts in Canada that were supposed to be vacated after the Treaty of Paris (1783). As of 1812, these belligerent forts was still there in violation of the Treaty. The British did not allow people to trade freely on the Great Lakes either. They were a big bully. They were kidnapping thousands of innocent American sna d seizing hundreds of American ships. You are making pro-empire and now pro-military arguments.

You basically have a fixation that because people like Bush and Clinton or FDR lie today about wars, then Madison must have lied about war 200 years ago. That's totally illogical.

Sorry, the 1st national bank was deemed Constitutional by the consensus of the Founding Fathers who decided that it was necessary and proper for the regulation of the value of currency. I agree this is a grray area, but I will not overule George Washingtom, who spent a lot of time thinking about his decision, or the House and Senate who debated it extensively. I know you think you are smarter than the Founding fathers, but you are not. Sorry.

All you are doing is helping Bernake.

I'm well aware of the impressment of American sailors which was occuring on the seas, but I'm just wondering what "freedom" was GAINED as a result of the war. You are the one making league with the war-hawks who wanted to open the Ohio Valley to settlement and to ANNEX Canada completely.

I never said Madison was deceived, or was deceiving anyone, did I?

Sorry, the First Bank of the United States was NOT deemed constitutional by a "consensus" of the founders, it was rejected by all of the founders who became Jeffersonian Republicans, and was supported by the High Federalists, the Pro-internal improvement Whigs, and the corporatist Republicans later in the century. George Washington was a military officer, he wasn't a constitutional scholar, nor is his opinion dispositive of the question. I side with James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John Taylor, John Randolph, and Andrew Jackson---you are more than welcome to your allies, Hamilton, Clay, Webster, Lincoln, and Greenspan and Bernanke.

[Galileo Galilei]

"Taylor agreed with Jefferson that the institution was an evil"

Again, I ask for your apology. Immediately.

No, Taylor was clearly a pro-slavery advocate. The record shows it. You are promoting anti-liberty people. This is the type of stuff that can ruin a candidate like Ron Paul.

I make no apologies to pro-slavery advocates. John Taylor was scum. If you wonder why State's rights has not been successful, take a good look at John Taylor of Caroline. I will grant you that he was not as bad as Calhoun.

[John Taylor]

No, Taylor was clearly a pro-slavery advocate. The record shows it. You are promoting anti-liberty people. This is the type of stuff that can ruin a candidate like Ron Paul.

I make no apologies to pro-slavery advocates. John Taylor was scum. If you wonder why State's rights has not been successful, take a good look at John Taylor of Caroline. I will grant you that he was not as bad as Calhoun.

You lie Sir. You Lie. You admit that "Taylor agreed with Jefferson that the institution was an evil", and yet claim he was a pro-slavery advocate.

So George Washington was also "scum"? Thomas Jefferson was also "scum"?

You are a sick twisted little man, and you're misconstruing and manipulating sentiment about a perifrial issue here like slavery, in order to deflect Senator Taylor's destruction of the "constitutionality" of your beloved National Bank. Ron Paul agrees down the line with the constitutional construction of John Taylor. Down the line. You are a liar sir.

[Galileo Galilei]

Abraham Lincoln called for the deporation of former slaves back to Africa... I'm sure that renders him a "slavery activist" as well?

I don't like Lincoln. He was pro-war violated the Constitution.

Lincoln also opposed inter-racial marriages.

Taylor advocated sending free blacks back to Africa. That is different than sending slaves back to Africa.

[John Taylor]

I don't like Lincoln. He was pro-war violated the Constitution.

Lincoln also opposed inter-racial marriages.

Taylor advocated sending free blacks back to Africa. That is different than sending slaves back to Africa.

I don't like Lincoln either, because he sided with your heros Hamilton and Clay on internal improvements and the aggrandizement of the federal government at the expense of our constitutional federal republic. Lincoln also supported straight up deportation of former slaves as well! He wanted them freed, and removed.

[Galileo Galilei]

He had no authority to destroy the bank, an congressional creation, after it was chartered. Sorry.

Jackson de-funded the bank, you know that. Then he let it expire in 1836. He vetoed a new bank bill in 1833. He did all this after meeting with James Madison in the summer of 1832. Most of the anti-Madison people don't know about this.

[John Taylor]

Jackson de-funded the bank, you know that. Then he let it expire in 1836. He vetoed a new bank bill in 1833. He did all this after meeting with James Madison in the summer of 1832. Most of the anti-Madison people don't know about this.

Only the congress can defund something. It is congress, not the executive, which holds the power of the purse. Come on, even you know that. Jackson only withdrew federally held specie from the Bank of the U.S., and deposited it in state banks.

I am intimately familiar with the history of banking in the United States, and with law and economic history, and nothing in any of those subjects in any way indicates that a national bank is constitutional.

[Galileo Galilei]

Haha, you are incredible!!! Comparing the Anti-Federalists to the neo-conservatives and liberals who oppose the constitution because it restricts government too much???? The Anti-Federalists like George Clinton, Patrick Henry, John Taylor and John Randolph did so because it granted too much power to the federal government, not because it granted too little.

Get real.

You need to get real. When people like you or George Clinton say the Constitution give too much power, then the neocons and liberls can say; "See, the Constitution gives us more power! After all, the anti-Federalist said it first."

In fact, almost all of the tactics used to distort the Constitution were thought up by the anti-Federalists first.

[John Taylor]

You need to get real. When people like you or George Clinton say the Constitution give too much power, then the neocons and liberls can say; "See, the Constitution gives us more power! After all, the anti-Federalist said it first."

In fact, almost all of the tactics used to distort the Constitution were thought up by the anti-Federalists first.

You are evil. It is the anti-federalists who properly described the emerging executive as a potential "foetus of tyranny".

The Anti-Federalists properly warned against granting to the federal government even the strictly enumerated powers it was given, and insisted on the inclusion of the Bill of Rights, something, like everything else the Anti-Federalists created, you are no doubt opposed to...

[Galileo Galilei]

Only the congress can defund something. It is congress, not the executive, which holds the power of the purse. Come on, even you know that. Jackson only withdrew federally held specie from the Bank of the U.S., and deposited it in state banks.

I am intimately familiar with the history of banking in the United States, and with law and economic history, and nothing in any of those subjects in any way indicates that a national bank is constitutional.

Jackson just put the new federal receipts into state banks. But paid expenses out of the federal bank. Totally legal under the laws at the time. Remember, the president is supposed to execute the laws.

[John Taylor]

Jackson just put the new federal receipts into state banks. But paid expenses out of the federal bank. Totally legal under the laws at the time. Remember, the president is supposed to execute the laws.

Yes, but he is also under oath to uphold the constitution, which, if you recall the supremacy clause, trumps laws which are not passed persuant to the constitution.

[Galileo Galilei]

You are evil. It is the anti-federalists who properly described the emerging executive as a potential "foetus of tyranny".



That always gets me, the slave-holding states worried about tyranny. Boo Hoo.

Prior to the abolition of Jim Crow laws, the States have ususally been more tyrannical than the federal government. Exceptions being Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, and Truman.

The anti-Federalists never predicted what happened in 1913. That's the year the States voted vast new ppwers to the Feds; the income tax and the direct election of Senators. You can't blame James Madison for stupidity by the States in 1913.

Prior to 1913, most people in the US had zero contact with the federal government.

[Galileo Galilei]

Yes, but he is also under oath to uphold the constitution, which, if you recall the supremacy clause, trumps laws which are not passed persuant to the constitution.

Since you are claiming the national bank was unconstitutional, it would be unconstitutional for Jackson to put federal money into it, right? Your arguments are nonsense.

[John Taylor]

That always gets me, the slave-holding states worried about tyranny. Boo Hoo.

Prior to the abolition of Jim Crow laws, the States have ususally been more tyrannical than the federal government. Exceptions being Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, and Truman.

The anti-Federalists never predicted what happened in 1913. That's the year the States voted vast new ppwers to the Feds; the income tax and the direct election of Senators. You can't blame James Madison for stupidity by the States in 1913.

Prior to 1913, most people in the US had zero contact with the federal government.

I wasn't aware that the Anti-Federalists were all proponents of slavery. I was under the impression that a very large portion of the population of New York opposed ratification, and were die hard Anti-Federalists. You must be right though, those bigots, they couldn't possibly be right about a consititutional construction regarding the expansion of federal power through an unenumerated power because they didn't like dark skinned people!!! Brilliant logic!

The States have been more tyrannical than the federal government? If by that you mean because of the constitutional nature of the exercise of the police power, then perhaps you are correct, but merely because the states enacted foolish policies, like your lauded internal improvements like the Erie Canal, does not translate into an endorsement for federalized action.

The Anti-Federalists did predict 1913, and predicted what would happen if your construction of the "necessary and proper" clause was adopted. Centralization of power, inevitably.

[John Taylor]

Since you are claiming the national bank was unconstitutional, it would be unconstitutional for Jackson to put federal money into it, right? Your arguments are nonsense.

The Second Bank of the United States, like the First, was unconstitutional.

It would be unconstitutional for any president to support an unconstitutional institution, so yes, I support President Jackson's action to withdraw taxpayer monies from that unconstitutional aberation.

[Galileo Galilei]

The Second Bank of the United States, like the First, was unconstitutional.

It would be unconstitutional for any president to support an unconstitutional institution, so yes, I support President Jackson's action to withdraw taxpayer monies from that unconstitutional aberation.

That's a matter of opinion. The congress has the power to regulate the value of currency. Whether the national bank of 1791 is appropriate for that is a gray area, based on the plain language iof the text.

Regardless, the Fed today is unconstitutional.

[John Taylor]

That's a matter of opinion. The congress has the power to regulate the value of currency. Whether the national bank of 1791 is appropriate for that is a gray area, based on the plain language iof the text.

Regardless, the Fed today is unconstitutional.

To regulate does not mean to manipulate the value, it means, to make regular. Look up the meaning of the words when they were written, then apply them to the textual fabric, before you come out in favor of central banking.

[Galileo Galilei]

To regulate does not mean to manipulate the value, it means, to make regular. Look up the meaning of the words when they were written, then apply them to the textual fabric, before you come out in favor of central banking.

The Fed today manipulates value. The first national bank did not do that. After 8 pages of thread, you still have not understood that there is a gigantic difference between the 1st national bank and today's Fed.

[John Taylor]

The Fed today manipulates value. The first national bank did not do that. After 8 pages of thread, you still have not understood that there is a gigantic difference between the 1st national bank and today's Fed.

I understand the differences between the functions of the various national banks which the United States federal government has maintained, but that does not transform an unconstitutionally chartered institution into a constitutional one. Read Tyranny Unmasked (http://www.constitution.org/jt/tyr_un.htm)and Constructions Construed and Constitutions Vindicated (http://www.constitution.org/jt/cccv.htm).

[Galileo Galilei]

I understand the differences between the functions of the various national banks which the United States federal government has maintained, but that does not transform an unconstitutionally chartered institution into a constitutional one. Read Tyranny Unmasked (http://www.constitution.org/jt/tyr_un.htm)and Constructions Construed and Constitutions Vindicated (http://www.constitution.org/jt/cccv.htm).

You are one of those people who thinks everything is a black or white issue. You also think you know everything. You don't.

I will continue to support the Constitution and the Founding Fathers, while opposing the Fed.

You can continue to undermine these efforts with distorted history and bizarre emphasis on obscure individuals. The liberals and necons are already twisting and distorting the Founding Fathers. We don't need people inside the movement doing it as well. You need to let go of your hatred of Alexander Hamilton, it is not healthy.

[John Taylor]

You are one of those people who thinks everything is a black or white issue. You also think you know everything. You don't.

I will continue to support the Constitution and the Founding Fathers, while opposing the Fed.

You can continue to undermine these efforts with distorted history and bizarre emphasis on obscure individuals. The liberals and necons are already twisting and distorting the Founding Fathers. We don't need people inside the movement doing it as well. You need to let go of your hatred of Alexander Hamilton, it is not healthy.

I have never stated here or anywhere else that I know everything about any issue. Such a claim is as ludicrous as your accusation.

I also have never said that constitutional construction is a black or white issue, it is a construction issue, strictly, according to the plain meaning and context of the charter, or in some more nebulous way like the one you endorse.

Alexander Hamilton is the ancestor of the progressives, and of the neo-conservatives. His primary focus was upon national greatness, constitution be damned. You and he were made of each other.

[Galileo Galilei]

I have never stated here or anywhere else that I know everything about any issue. Such a claim is as ludicrous as your accusation.

I also have never said that constitutional construction is a black or white issue, it is a construction issue, strictly, according to the plain meaning and context of the charter, or in some more nebulous way like the one you endorse.

Alexander Hamilton is the ancestor of the progressives, and of the neo-conservatives. His primary focus was upon national greatness, constitution be damned. You and he were made of each other.

Hamilton's primary legacy is the Federalist Papers, which have nothing to do with progessives. in fact, the Federalist Papers pretty much contradict the entire progressive agenda.

Outside of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill-of-Rights, the Federalist Papers are the most canonical, most sacred, and most influential writings in defense of a small limited government.

No other nation on earth ever had such a treasure of small government writings to help insure liberty. What you are doing is not productive.

[John Taylor]

Hamilton's primary legacy is the Federalist Papers, which have nothing to do with progessives. in fact, the Federalist Papers pretty much contradict the entire progressive agenda.

Outside of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill-of-Rights, the Federalist Papers are the most canonical, most sacred, and most influential writings in defense of a small limited government.

No other nation on earth ever had such a treasure of small government writings to help insure liberty. What you are doing is not productive.

Hamilton only wrote a portion of the federalist papers, and the federalist papers have been proven by history to have been wrong, in that, the constitution did not limit the power of the federal government in the fashions proclaimed by Mr. Hamilton.

It is not the federalist papers or Hamilton which directly created the progressives, but indirectly, that was the end. By foisting a loose constitutitonal construction on the country and defending it, Hamilton established the precedent that his fellow travelers Lincoln and Wilson would later use to destroy the federal republic.

What you are doing, defending a wolf in sheep's clothing, is what is not helpful.

[Galileo Galilei]

Hamilton only wrote a portion of the federalist papers, and the federalist papers have been proven by history to have been wrong, in that, the constitution did not limit the power of the federal government in the fashions proclaimed by Mr. Hamilton.

It is not the federalist papers or Hamilton which directly created the progressives, but indirectly, that was the end. By foisting a loose constitutitonal construction on the country and defending it, Hamilton established the precedent that his fellow travelers Lincoln and Wilson would later use to destroy the federal republic.

What you are doing, defending a wolf in sheep's clothing, is what is not helpful.

You're totally wrong, the Federalist Papers argue for a smaller government. You again blame some papers written in 1787 for what happened in 1913. Most people have no idea what Hamilton did with the bank. Most people know Hamilton from the Federalist Papers. When I was in school, I read the Federalist Papers, but we did not cover Hamilton's banking policies.

Hamilton's banking policies prove that today's Fed is totally unconstitutional anyway. Hamilton's bank did not have fiat currency, it had a temporary term, did not operate in utter secrecy, and did not do bailouts.

The idea of a central bank goes back to Great Britain, not Hamilton. The progressives used the Bank of England for inspiration because the 1st bank was very limited in power. The progressives were alos inspired by Rosseau and Marx. These people are not even from the United States.

[John Taylor]

You're totally wrong, the Federalist Papers argue for a smaller government. You again blame some papers written in 1787 for what happened in 1913. Most people have no idea what Hamilton did with the bank. Most people know Hamilton from the Federalist Papers. When I was in school, I read the Federalist Papers, but we did not cover Hamilton's banking policies.

Hamilton's banking policies prove that today's Fed is totally unconstitutional anyway. Hamilton's bank did not have fiat currency, it had a temporary term, did not operate in utter secrecy, and did not do bailouts.

The idea of a central bank goes back to Great Britain, not Hamilton. The progressives used the Bank of England for inspiration because the 1st bank was very limited in power. The progressives were alos inspired by Rosseau and Marx. These people are not even from the United States.

You are completely and utterly mistaken. The federalist papers argue for a LARGER, MORE ENERGETIC government, one which would replace the Articles of Confederation with a more activist regime.

Actually, Hamilton was instrumental in the issuance of continental script, and it was the continual inflation of this currency which savaged the Amercian economy.

Hamilton wished to emulate the British system, and advocated a loose constitutional construction which allowed for men like Lincoln and Wilson to further attack the constitutional fabric of limited government.

[Sic Semper Tyrannis]

Why is Galileo Galilei always screaming racism and defending big government historical figures on here?

[Galileo Galilei]

You are completely and utterly mistaken. The federalist papers argue for a LARGER, MORE ENERGETIC government, one which would replace the Articles of Confederation with a more activist regime.

Actually, Hamilton was instrumental in the issuance of continental script, and it was the continual inflation of this currency which savaged the Amercian economy.

Hamilton wished to emulate the British system, and advocated a loose constitutional construction which allowed for men like Lincoln and Wilson to further attack the constitutional fabric of limited government.

All educated young men in the South, pre-civil war, read the Federalist Papers, with contributed to their understanding of state's rights and limited federal powers. This includes John Taylor.

The Federalist Papers were at the center of the corpus of reading. For example, Jefferson had them as required reading at the University of Virginia. The other core readings (besides our three fundamental documents) were Washington's Farewell Address (also written mostly by Hamilton), The Kentucky Resolution, the Virginia Resolution, and Madison's Report of 1800. However all these documents added up are still less reading than the Federalist Papers.

I wish to withdraw any suggestion that I made that you have any hint of racism. However, the original John Taylor of Caroline did indeed promte slavery even if he remarked that it was evil. That in some way makes it worse if he knew it was evil but still promoted it.

I also still consider you to be a tue patriot and vey smart regarding strategy and issues, even if you are mistaken in this regard, so I hope this spirited debate has not damaged our friendship.

Sincerely,

Galileo

[Galileo Galilei]

Why is Galileo Galilei always screaming racism and defending big government historical figures on here?

show me where the Federalist Papers defend big government.

[heavenlyboy34]

show me where the Federalist Papers defend big government.

Start with Federalist no. 9. The more Federalism you read, the more obvious it becomes that it's a big government philosophy. :p

[Galileo Galilei]

Start with Federalist no. 9. The more Federalism you read, the more obvious it becomes that it's a big government philosophy. :p

Federalist # 9 is basically the same as # 10, only not as well written. Having a functional government that can do basic things like pay for an ambassador to France or England, or pay the war veterans their back pay is not a big government.

Historically, all big governents had arisen from independent states fighting each other in endless arrays of alliances and wars.

[silverhandorder]

Hamilton changed his position several times for bigger government. He was playing a lot of people to get what he wants. He got a lot of people excited for improvements. As such I have really hard time believing Hamilton's good intentions.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Interesting that you tout a slave-o-crat for your handle. John Taylor said slavery was a great thing. Let me get this straight; you oppose bank slavery, but support it on racial grounds?

Uh, slavery in the united States was based on Caste, not Race. There were free Black and Mulattoes, and slave Mulattoes and Whites. Read up on Mary Chestnut and you'll learn something new.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Fuck Hamilton.

Eww, necrophilia. No thanks. (j/k :D). Yes, indeed piss on Hamilton. Mercantilist bastard.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Thank Hamilton for deciding the matter of taxation in the United States with this brief argued before SCOTUS:



February 24, 1795.

What is the distinction between direct and indirect taxes? It is a matter of regret that terms so uncertain and vague in so important a point are to be found in the Constitution. We shall seek in vain for any antecedent settled legal meaning to the respective terms—there is none.

We shall be as much at a loss to find any disposition of either which can satisfactorily determine the point.

Shall we call an indirect tax, a tax which is ultimately paid by a person, different from the one who pays it in the first instance?

Truly speaking, there is no such tax—those on imported articles best claim the character. But in many instances the merchant cannot transfer the tax to the buyer; in numerous cases it falls on himself, partly or wholly. Besides, if the same article which is imported by a merchant for sale, is imported by a merchant for his own use, or by a lawyer, a physician, or mechanic, for his own use, there can be no question about the transfer of the tax. It remains upon him who pays it.

According to that rule, then, the same tax may be both a direct and indirect tax, which is an absurdity. To urge that a man may either buy an article already imported, or import it himself, amounts to nothing; sometimes he could not have that option.

But the option of an individual cannot alter the nature of a thing. In like manner he might avoid the tax on carriages by hiring occasionally instead of buying.

The subject of taxation, not the contingent optional conduct of individuals, must be the criterion of direct or indirect taxation. Shall it be said that an indirect tax is that of which a man is not conscious when he pays? Neither is there any such tax. The ignorant may not see the tax in the enhanced price of the commodity—but the man of reflection knows it is there. Besides, when any but a merchant pays, as in the case of the lawyer, etc., who imports for himself, he cannot but be conscious that it falls upon himself.

By this rule, also, then a tax would be both direct and indirect—and it will be equally impracticable to find any other precise or satisfactory criterion.

In such a case no construction ought to prevail calculated to defeat the express and necessary authority of the government.

It would be contrary to reason, and to every rule of sound construction, to adopt a principle for regulating the exercise of a clear constitutional power which would defeat the exercise of the power.

It cannot be contested that a duty on carriages specifically is as much within the authority of the government as a duty on lands or buildings.

Now, if a duty on carriages is to be considered as a direct tax, to be apportioned according to the rates of representation, very absurd consequences must ensue.

‘T is possible that a particular State may have no carriages of the description intended to be taxed, or a very small number.

But each State would have to pay a proportion of the sum to be laid, according to its relative numbers; yet, while the State would have to pay a quota, it might have no carriages upon which its quota could be assessed, or so few, as to render it ruinous to the owners to pay the tax. To consider then a duty on carriages as a direct tax, may be to defeat the power of laying such a duty. This is a consequence which ought not to ensue from construction.

Further: If the tax on carriages be a direct tax, that on ships according to their tonnage must be so likewise. Here is not a consumable article. Here the tax is paid by the owner of the thing taxed, from time to time, as would be the tax on carriages.

If it be said that the tax is indirect because it is alternately paid by the freighter of the vessel, the answer is, that sometimes the owner is himself the freighter, and at other times the tonnage accrues when there is no freight, and is a dead charge on the owner of the vessel.

Moreover, a tax on a hackney or stage-coach or other carriage, or on a dray or cart employed in transporting commodities for hire, would be as much a charge on the freight as a tax upon vessels; so that, if the latter be an indirect tax, the former cannot be a direct tax.

And it would be too great a refinement for a rule of practice in government to say, that a tax on a hackney or stage-coach, and upon a dray or cart, is an indirect one, and yet a tax upon a coach or wagon ordinarily used for the purposes of its owner, is a direct one.

The only known source of the distinction between direct and indirect taxes is in the doctrine of the French Economists—Locke and other speculative writers—who affirm that all taxes fall ultimately upon land, and are paid out of its produce, whether laid immediately upon itself, or upon any other thing. Hence, taxes upon lands are in that system called direct taxes; those on all other articles indirect taxes.

According to this, land taxes only would be direct taxes, but it is apparent that something more was intended by the Constitution. In one case, a capitation is spoken of as a direct tax.

But how is the meaning of the Constitution to be determined? It has been affirmed, and so it will be found, that there is no general principle which can indicate the boundary between the two. That boundary, then, must be fixed by a species of arbitration, and ought to be such as will involve neither absurdity nor inconvenience.

The following are presumed to be the only direct taxes.

Capitation or poll taxes.

Taxes on lands and buildings.

General assessments, whether on the whole property of individuals, or on their whole real or personal estate; all else must of necessity be considered as indirect taxes.

To apply a rule of apportionment according to numbers to taxes of the above description, has some rationale in it; but to extend an apportionment of that kind to other cases, would, in many instances, produce, as has been seen, preposterous consequences, and would greatly embarrass the operations of the government. Nothing could be more capricious or outré, than the application of quotas in such cases.

The Constitution gives power to Congress to lay and collect the taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, requiring that all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

Here duties, imposts, and excises appear to be contradistinguished from taxes, and while the latter is left to apportionment, the former are enjoined to be uniform.

But, unfortunately, there is equally here a want of criterion to distinguish duties, imposts, and excises from taxes.

If the meaning of the word excise is to be sought in the British statutes, it will be found to include the duty on carriages, which is there considered as an excise, and then must necessarily be uniform and not liable to apportionment; consequently not a direct tax.

An argument results from this, though not perhaps a conclusive one: yet where so important a distinction in the Constitution is to be realized, it is fair to seek the meaning of terms in the statutory language of that country from which our jurisprudence is derived.

[1]Hamilton, when Secretary of the Treasury, recommended a tax on pleasure carriages and Madison opposed it in the House on the ground that it was a direct tax, and therefore unconstitutional. The bill laying the tax became a law, and certain persons in Virginia refused to pay the tax, taking Madison’s position as to its unconstitutionality. The case came before the Supreme Court, and Hamilton appeared for the government with the Attorney-General of the United States. One of the newspapers said next day (Feb. 25th): “Yesterday, in the Supreme Court of the United States, Mr. Hamilton, late Secretary of the Treasury, made a most eloquent speech in support of the constitutionality of the carriage tax. He spoke for three hours. and the whole of his argument was clear, impressive, and classical. The audience, which was very numerous, and among whom were many foreigners of distinction and many of the Members of Congress, testified the effect produced by the talents of this great orator and statesman.”

All that now remains of the argument is the fragment of a brief given above. The case was Hylton vs. the United States, and is reported 1 Dallas, 171. The court sustained Hamilton’s view, and held unanimously that the tax was not direct and therefore constitutional.

Thanks buddy for advocating a constitution with vague terms.

[Galileo Galilei]

Thank Hamilton for deciding the matter of taxation in the United States with this brief argued before SCOTUS:



Thanks buddy for advocating a constitution with vague terms.

See, there you go again. You blame Hamilton for what other people did.

Others to blame here besides Hamilton:

George Washington for appointing all the Supreme Court Justices.

The Supreme Court Justices.

The Senate for confirming all the Justices.

The 13 State legislatures for appointing the Senators.

The People for electing the State legislatures.

No, not everybody here is stupid.

And one other thing. We had very low taxes in 1795. We also had to pay back the heroes of the Revolution for thier service to liberty. What you are basically saying is that Patriots like Paul Revere or John Paul Jones should not be paid what is owed to them.

[Galileo Galilei]

Uh, slavery in the united States was based on Caste, not Race. There were free Black and Mulattoes, and slave Mulattoes and Whites. Read up on Mary Chestnut and you'll learn something new.

Right, dude. There were a few exceptions to a general rule. Big deal.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Right, dude. There were a few exceptions to a general rule. Big deal.

You apparently don't know what the fuck it is you're talking about. There weren't 'a few exceptions'. Try reading something about it.

[Galileo Galilei]

You apparently don't know what the fuck it is you're talking about. There weren't 'a few exceptions'. Try reading something about it.

OK, what percent of the 4 million slaves fell into your suddenly important exception? Educate us.

[John Taylor]

See, there you go again. You blame Hamilton for what other people did.

Others to blame here besides Hamilton:

George Washington for appointing all the Supreme Court Justices.

The Supreme Court Justices.

The Senate for confirming all the Justices.

The 13 State legislatures for appointing the Senators.

The People for electing the State legislatures.

No, not everybody here is stupid.

And one other thing. We had very low taxes in 1795. We also had to pay back the heroes of the Revolution for thier service to liberty. What you are basically saying is that Patriots like Paul Revere or John Paul Jones should not be paid what is owed to them.

George Washington was a Federalist, he is complicit in the blame for appointing John Marshall to the Supreme Court. Jefferson was right to seek Chief Justice Marshall's impeachment.

The Senate and the House were controlled by Federalists through the election of 1800, and as such, they were able to railroad their unconstitutional construction of the constitutional through congress.

As for the "heroes" you want to be "paid back" for their service. Paul Revere and John Paul Jones, or even Ethan Hale, did not fight and strive for liberty for money, but from freedom FROM big government.

[John Taylor]

OK, what percent of the 4 million slaves fell into your suddenly important exception? Educate us.

Likely not many of the "slaves" fell into the classification of the free blacks and mulattoes.

Try to be logical next time.

[Galileo Galilei]

Start with Federalist no. 9. The more Federalism you read, the more obvious it becomes that it's a big government philosophy. :p

Federalist No. 9


"The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection."

This proved to be dead on accurate, as the Civil War occurred when the Union was not intact. Under the AoC, the States would have been fighting each other on a regular basis, AND they would have been fighting over western lands as well. Examples of this go back thousands of years.

Publius' argument:


A major aspect of Federalist No. 9 is Hamilton's response to the common Anti-Federalist argument based on the theories of Montesquieu, who wrote famously in his The Spirit of the Laws that "it is natural to a republic to have only a small territory, otherwise it cannot long subsist." The Anti-Federalist took his arguments to mean that the federal Union was bound to fail. Hamilton responded that if Montesquieu were taken literally, then since he was thinking of dimensions far smaller even than those of the states, the Americans would have to split themselves into "an infinity of little, jealous, clashing tumultuous commonwealths." More seriously, Hamilton contends that the confederated federal system described in the proposed Constitution would not suffer as Montesquieu predicted because of its confederated, rather than centralized, design.

In 1913, we went from a confederated system, to a more centralized system, which is the root cause of our big government today. The Federalist Paper here makes a plain small government argument that we should remain confederated. Obviously, this advice was not heeded in 1913.

[John Taylor]

All educated young men in the South, pre-civil war, read the Federalist Papers, with contributed to their understanding of state's rights and limited federal powers. This includes John Taylor.

The Federalist Papers were at the center of the corpus of reading. For example, Jefferson had them as required reading at the University of Virginia. The other core readings (besides our three fundamental documents) were Washington's Farewell Address (also written mostly by Hamilton), The Kentucky Resolution, the Virginia Resolution, and Madison's Report of 1800. However all these documents added up are still less reading than the Federalist Papers.

I wish to withdraw any suggestion that I made that you have any hint of racism. However, the original John Taylor of Caroline did indeed promte slavery even if he remarked that it was evil. That in some way makes it worse if he knew it was evil but still promoted it.

I also still consider you to be a tue patriot and vey smart regarding strategy and issues, even if you are mistaken in this regard, so I hope this spirited debate has not damaged our friendship.

Sincerely,

Galileo

Actually Galileo, John Taylor's Constructions Construed and Constitutions Vindicated was the primary study guide for the constitution in the antebellum South. Of course the federalist papers were widely read, but they are not infallible regarding construction.

Constructions Construed and Constitutions Vindicated was the preeminent book on constitutional construction from the date of its being published until the fall of Richmond in 1865.

I don't believe Col. Taylor, in any of the writings I have read, made a positive good defense of slavery, but rather explained a utilitarian argument for not necessarily wanting to integrate into a strictly limited government society several millions of people who had no real conception of respect for the institution of private property.

Now, that is no reason to keep people enslaved, but we sit here, 200 years later, passing judgment on one of the greatest luminaries of the founding, and you argue that we should discard his contribution of founding the Jeffersonian school of political theory. I am not prepared to go so far!

I am not personally upset, I know I am no racist, but I do believe in the superiority of that system through which the west grew rich, that is, the unrestrained market forces of laissez faire and the constitutionally limited government, federal republicanism, and rule of law which facilitated it.

Good luck.

[John Taylor]

Federalist No. 9



This proved to be dead on accurate, as the Civil War occurred when the Union was not intact. Under the AoC, the States would have been fighting each other on a regular basis, AND they would have been fighting over western lands as well. Examples of this go back thousands of years.

Publius' argument:



In 1913, we went from a confederated system, to a more centralized system, which is the root cause of our big government today. The Federalist Paper here makes a plain small government argument that we should remain confederated. Obviously, this advice was not heeded in 1913.

We went to a more centralized system when Hamilton's interpretation of the constitution was adopted for the country through force of arms by President Lincoln.

Lincoln fought the war between the states to "preserve the union", this same union you deny existed. So which is it? Was the union fought for, or did it never exist?

The union clearly existed from the moment of the ratification of the constitution, and I furthermore see absolutely no evidence that the states, in the absence of the centralism you favor, would have fought one another.

[Galileo Galilei]

Why is Galileo Galilei always screaming racism and defending big government historical figures on here?

"How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?"

Samuel Johnson

http://www.samueljohnson.com/jpolitics.html

[John Taylor]

"How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?"

Samuel Johnson

http://www.samueljohnson.com/jpolitics.html

Yet another slander against those of us on these boards opposed to centralized government and unconstitutionally vague constitutional constructions.

In any event, it is because sir, there was an unfortunate yet distinction between those who favored economic liberty and freedom of trade and those who favored mercantilism.

Very few men were like that great great Jacksonian Democrat, Martin Van Buren, who was pro-economic liberty, pro-constitutional government, and was opposed to slavery.

Most northerners had no problem transferring wealth from southern and westerners to themselves...

[Galileo Galilei]

George Washington was a Federalist, he is complicit in the blame for appointing John Marshall to the Supreme Court. Jefferson was right to seek Chief Justice Marshall's impeachment.

The Senate and the House were controlled by Federalists through the election of 1800, and as such, they were able to railroad their unconstitutional construction of the constitutional through congress.

As for the "heroes" you want to be "paid back" for their service. Paul Revere and John Paul Jones, or even Ethan Hale, did not fight and strive for liberty for money, but from freedom FROM big government.

Well, of you don't like the Federalists, they were driven into extinction by Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and James Monroe.

I believe in honoring contracts. If patriots fight in the Revolution, they deserve to be paid. Even with the pay, they gave up a lot, they left their families/businesses or suffered injuries and/or death. So your idea that we should not pay people is a load of BS.

In fact, that is why most revolutions deteriorate into military dictatorship quickly. The military uses the argument they have not been paid as a reason to take over.

Nor did we have a "big government" as you say from paying these people. In 1801, the entire federal government in Washington had only 300 employees, and that INCLUDED the congress and the Supreme Court.

[John Taylor]

Well, of you don't like the Federalists, they were driven into extinction by Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and James Monroe.

I believe in honoring contracts. If patriots fight in the Revolution, they deserve to be paid. Even with the pay, they gave up a lot, they left their families/businesses or suffered injuries and/or death. So your idea that we should not pay people is a load of BS.

In fact, that is why most revolutions deteriorate into military dictatorship quickly. The military uses the argument they have not been paid as a reason to take over.

Nor did we have a "big government" as you say from paying these people. In 1801, the entire federal government in Washington had only 300 employees, and that INCLUDED the congress and the Supreme Court.

You're damned right I don't like the Federalists, they aren't worth a collective hill of beans.

I also believe in honoring contracts, insomuch as one does not have to tyrannize another in order to honor it. Soldiers WERE paid for their service, but that was done WAY before the constitutional convention.

Most revolutions do no devolve into dictatorships because of soldiers not being paid, but because the people overthrowing the old government do not value the rule of law.

The Federalists supported big government, that is a historical fact. They argued for the constitutional interpretations which have allowed for the later destructive reigns of other presidents like Wilson, Lincoln, and FDR.

In 1799, the Federalist created a new court system with HUNDREDS of new Federalist Judges packed into them to continue their centralizing agenda.

[Galileo Galilei]

Actually Galileo, John Taylor's Constructions Construed and Constitutions Vindicated was the primary study guide for the constitution in the antebellum South. Of course the federalist papers were widely read, but they are not infallible regarding construction.

Constructions Construed and Constitutions Vindicated was the preeminent book on constitutional construction from the date of its being published until the fall of Richmond in 1865.

I don't believe Col. Taylor, in any of the writings I have read, made a positive good defense of slavery, but rather explained a utilitarian argument for not necessarily wanting to integrate into a strictly limited government society several millions of people who had no real conception of respect for the institution of private property.

Now, that is no reason to keep people enslaved, but we sit here, 200 years later, passing judgment on one of the greatest luminaries of the founding, and you argue that we should discard his contribution of founding the Jeffersonian school of political theory. I am not prepared to go so far!

I am not personally upset, I know I am no racist, but I do believe in the superiority of that system through which the west grew rich, that is, the unrestrained market forces of laissez faire and the constitutionally limited government, federal republicanism, and rule of law which facilitated it.

Good luck.

sorry, but that book wasn't on the core reading list for the U of Virginia complied by Jefferson or Madison. Madison was in charge until 1834.

Nor is ther book cited by Kyd Douglas in his book "I Rode With Stonewall".

http://www.amazon.com/Rode-Stonewall-Henry-Kyd-Douglas/dp/0807803375#reader_0807803375

Look on page 5, it lists the Federalist Papers as core reading, plus Madison's Notes on the Constitution and the State debates (Madison's Notes were not published until 1840, and the State notes were not available early on either).

Douglas was a younger kid who was educated in the South in the 1850s. He was the personal secretary of Stonewall Jackson.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

See, there you go again. You blame Hamilton for what other people did.

Others to blame here besides Hamilton:

George Washington for appointing all the Supreme Court Justices.

The Supreme Court Justices.

The Senate for confirming all the Justices.

The 13 State legislatures for appointing the Senators.

The People for electing the State legislatures.

No, not everybody here is stupid.

And one other thing. We had very low taxes in 1795. We also had to pay back the heroes of the Revolution for thier service to liberty. What you are basically saying is that Patriots like Paul Revere or John Paul Jones should not be paid what is owed to them.

There you go again, I thought the thread was about Hamilton. I criticized Hamilton for advocating a vague document. A fact established by Hamilton's own words and admission in a SCOTUS brief. So... yes... thanks buddy for advocating a vague document.

Pay back who? If I file an application for land grants on behalf of ancestors who served in the 11th Va. regiment during the revolutionary war are you going to honor legislated land grants not received?

Since you are trying to change the subject, I don't solely blame Hamilton. I simply don't have respect for coercive monopoly and ideas of a strong central government regardless of who advocates it.

You are fond of Hamilton's ideas for strong central government. You presently have a strong central government. Are you unhappy with it?

[Galileo Galilei]

We went to a more centralized system when Hamilton's interpretation of the constitution was adopted for the country through force of arms by President Lincoln.

Lincoln fought the war between the states to "preserve the union", this same union you deny existed. So which is it? Was the union fought for, or did it never exist?

The union clearly existed from the moment of the ratification of the constitution, and I furthermore see absolutely no evidence that the states, in the absence of the centralism you favor, would have fought one another.

Lincoln was not president of the Union, the Union broke up befoere he took office. The whole point that Hamilton makes is that disunion leads to war. Hamilton is saying that if we don't have a Union, the groups of States will band together and attack other groups of States. Hamilton knew that ruthless military dictatore like Lincoln would take over if we had disunion.

Hamilton was correct.

[Galileo Galilei]

Yet another slander against those of us on these boards opposed to centralized government and unconstitutionally vague constitutional constructions.

In any event, it is because sir, there was an unfortunate yet distinction between those who favored economic liberty and freedom of trade and those who favored mercantilism.

Very few men were like that great great Jacksonian Democrat, Martin Van Buren, who was pro-economic liberty, pro-constitutional government, and was opposed to slavery.

Most northerners had no problem transferring wealth from southern and westerners to themselves...

So you accuse Samual Johnson of slander? He was regarded as one of the greatest intellects of the 18th century. He was not a northerner, either. You have a knack for picking enemies.

[Galileo Galilei]

You're damned right I don't like the Federalists, they aren't worth a collective hill of beans.

I also believe in honoring contracts, insomuch as one does not have to tyrannize another in order to honor it. Soldiers WERE paid for their service, but that was done WAY before the constitutional convention.

Most revolutions do no devolve into dictatorships because of soldiers not being paid, but because the people overthrowing the old government do not value the rule of law.

The Federalists supported big government, that is a historical fact. They argued for the constitutional interpretations which have allowed for the later destructive reigns of other presidents like Wilson, Lincoln, and FDR.

In 1799, the Federalist created a new court system with HUNDREDS of new Federalist Judges packed into them to continue their centralizing agenda.

Yes, but after the Revolution of 1800, we had 24 years of small government presidents of the Virginia dynasty. Most of those judges were gone by 1825. And when Marshall finally was gone, he was replaced with small government advocate Taney.

We had a war debt of $75 million after the Revolution. It had to be paid back somehow.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Lincoln was not president of the Union, the Union broke up befoere he took office. The whole point that Hamilton makes is that disunion leads to war. Hamilton is saying that if we don't have a Union, the groups of States will band together and attack other groups of States. Hamilton knew that ruthless military dictatore like Lincoln would take over if we had disunion.

Hamilton was correct.

Earlier you mentioned George Washington...

So when the union broke up following the ratification of the Constitution by nine states did the ten states who participated in the presidential election of George Washington war with the remaining sovereign nation states that did not ratify?

[Galileo Galilei]

There you go again, I thought the thread was about Hamilton. I criticized Hamilton for advocating a vague document. A fact established by Hamilton's own words and admission in a SCOTUS brief. So... yes... thanks buddy for advocating a vague document.

Pay back who? If I file an application for land grants on behalf of ancestors who served in the 11th Va. regiment during the revolutionary war are you going to honor legislated land grants not received?

Since you are trying to change the subject, I don't solely blame Hamilton. I simply don't have respect for coercive monopoly and ideas of a strong central government regardless of who advocates it.

You are fond of Hamilton's ideas for strong central government. You presently have a strong central government. Are you unhappy with it?

No, I favor a small central government. But you help the big govenrment advocates when you make ignoarant statements. Many soldiers, offiicers, militia, and busnessmen had made loans to finance the revolution. they had to be paid what was owed to them. most of the patriots sacrificed enough, they didn't need to be gyped by thier own govenrment on top of it.

In 1783, the officers of the military voted to march to Philadelphia and arrest the entire congress for not paying them. Such a tactic became impossible after the Constitution was ratified because of the separation of powers.

[Galileo Galilei]

Earlier you mentioned George Washington...

So when the union broke up following the ratification of the Constitution by nine states did the ten states who participated in the presidential election of George Washington war with the remaining sovereign nation states that did not ratify?

No, because they were on the verge of joining the new Union, most wanting a Bill-of-Rights. Rhode Island figured out, for example, that if they did not join the Union, they would eventually be gobbled up by a larger state or recaptured by Great Britain.

But you are correct, had the new Union not been ratified by all, or by less than 9, then war would have broke out soon.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

No, I favor a small central government. But you help the big govenrment advocates when you make ignoarant statements. Many soldiers, offiicers, militia, and busnessmen had made loans to finance the revolution. they had to be paid what was owed to them. most of the patriots sacrificed enough, they didn't need to be gyped by thier own govenrment on top of it.

In 1783, the officers of the military voted to march to Philadelphia and arrest the entire congress for not paying them. Such a tactic became impossible after the Constitution was ratified because of the separation of powers.

Ignorant eh :rolleyes:

Funny you bring up the 1783 mutiny...

couple book excerpts:

http://i39.tinypic.com/1r2iiv.png

http://i42.tinypic.com/35cescz.png

http://i44.tinypic.com/v3hnqf.png

http://i42.tinypic.com/f526w5.png

[Galileo Galilei]

Ignorant eh :rolleyes:

Funny you bring up the 1783 mutiny...

couple book excerpts:

http://i39.tinypic.com/1r2iiv.png

http://i42.tinypic.com/35cescz.png

http://i44.tinypic.com/v3hnqf.png

http://i42.tinypic.com/f526w5.png

Great stuff.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

But you are correct, had the new Union not been ratified by all, or by less than 9, then war would have broke out soon.

I did not make that assertion. I am correct in my assertion war did not break out nor was imminent. I pointed out an instance in history the union broke up in which war did not break out. You offer no evidence to support the claim you make with your twisting of words.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Great stuff.

Did you have any other talking points you wanted to regurgitate for standing armies on behalf of someone that has been associated with a coup?

Maybe we could investigate any relation between Knox's... like Philander Knox and the 16th amendment.

[John Taylor]

Yes, but after the Revolution of 1800, we had 24 years of small government presidents of the Virginia dynasty. Most of those judges were gone by 1825. And when Marshall finally was gone, he was replaced with small government advocate Taney.

We had a war debt of $75 million after the Revolution. It had to be paid back somehow.

Why? Why should we want the "full faith and credit of the United States" to be higher? Why would we want people to lend the government more money, or be willing to lend it? The states took on their own debts, the continental government diluted the monetary supply with fiat currency and then tried to tax everyone to pay back the speculators, like John Marshall himself, who bought up all the devalued bonds.

[Galileo Galilei]

Why? Why should we want the "full faith and credit of the United States" to be higher? Why would we want people to lend the government more money, or be willing to lend it? The states took on their own debts, the continental government diluted the monetary supply with fiat currency and then tried to tax everyone to pay back the speculators, like John Marshall himself, who bought up all the devalued bonds.

So if it's your policy to renege on promises and hang patriots out to dry, ride with it. If that's what you have to throw under the bus to punish Hamilton, then so be it.

[Galileo Galilei]

I did not make that assertion. I am correct in my assertion war did not break out nor was imminent. I pointed out an instance in history the union broke up in which war did not break out. You offer no evidence to support the claim you make with your twisting of words.

There are plenty of quotes from the Founding Fathers who said they expected war if a new Constitution was not formed. Please don't play dumb with me, you know these quotes exist a'plenty.

There was already a war going on between Pennsylvania and Connecticut, for example. There was also unrest between Maine and Massachusetts. There was also Vermont and New York in tension. There was Kentucky and Virginia. There was Georgia and Spain to the South in tension. And there was Shay's rebellion. There were constant conflicts with the Indians. There were the British forts in Canada that were never vacated like they were supposed to per the Treaty of Paris (1783). The Great Lakes were still militarized. The French were still a big player. And there were expected western land rushes that the Founding Fathers expected to result in confluct over new lands, like the mad rush to Ohio. All these were potential if not actual flashpoints well known to the educated people of the time.

Go back and read your history instead of just buying every statement hook line a sinker that idiots who want to bring back the Articles of Confederation spew out.

[Galileo Galilei]

Did you have any other talking points you wanted to regurgitate for standing armies on behalf of someone that has been associated with a coup?

Maybe we could investigate any relation between Knox's... like Philander Knox and the 16th amendment.

Oh, I get it. The stupid states aren't at fault for the 16th amendment, its Philander Knox!

If the federal government was so gigantic in 1912, why did the States give massive new powers to the federal government in 1913? Huh?

The Federalist Papers and its principles oppose both the 16th and 17th amendment.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

There are plenty of quotes from the Founding Fathers who said they expected war if a new Constitution was not formed. Please don't play dumb with me, you know these quotes exist a'plenty.

There was already a war going on between Pennsylvania and Connecticut, for example. There was also unrest between Maine and Massachusetts. There was also Vermont and New York in tension. There was Kentucky and Virginia. There was Georgia and Spain to the South in tension. And there was Shay's rebellion. There were constant conflicts with the Indians. There were the British forts in Canada that were never vacated like they were supposed to per the Treaty of Paris (1783). The Great Lakes were still militarized. The French were still a big player. And there were expected western land rushes that the Founding Fathers expected to result in confluct over new lands, like the mad rush to Ohio. All these were potential if not actual flashpoints well known to the educated people of the time.

Go back and read your history instead of just buying every statement hook line a sinker that idiots who want to bring back the Articles of Confederation spew out.

You still haven't offered anything to make a case for an imminent threat of war between the states following nine states ratifying the constitution. You are rolling a bunch of shit off of your keyboard and wrapping it up with a little personal insult. How about actually making a coherent case to support your assertion(s)...

Regarding your ignorant Articles of Confederation remark... I am not affiliated with monopoly and coercion.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Oh, I get it. The stupid states aren't at fault for the 16th amendment, its Philander Knox!

If the federal government was so gigantic in 1912, why did the States give massive new powers to the federal government in 1913? Huh?

If blame rests with abstract objects such as states it must be miracle coincidence.



The Federalist Papers and its principles oppose both the 16th and 17th amendment.

I already addressed Hamilton's federalist view on taxation in his own words.

[Galileo Galilei]

You still haven't offered anything to make a case for an imminent threat of war between the states following nine states ratifying the constitution. You are rolling a bunch of shit off of your keyboard and wrapping it up with a little personal insult. How about actually making a coherent case to support your assertion(s)...

Regarding your ignorant Articles of Confederation remark... I am not affiliated with monopoly and coercion.

There was already a war going on, between Pennsyvania and Connecticut. That alone disproves your thesis. Shay's rebellion happened. You made your thesis before you got the facts. You read some slanted history and decided it was true before analyzing all points of view. Give up the ghost.

[Galileo Galilei]

I already addressed Hamilton's federalist view on taxation in his own words.

Hamilton never supported an income tax. He opposed the income tax by signing the Constitution, which prohibits and income tax.

This fact alone makes Hamilton small government by today's standards.

My point is that people here need to stop complaining about Hamilton, and start complaining about people today who enable the income tax.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

There was already a war going on, between Pennsyvania and Connecticut. That alone disproves your thesis. Shay's rebellion happened. You made your thesis before you got the facts. You read some slanted history and decided it was true before analyzing all points of view. Give up the ghost.

You have not established anything. You are just rolling a bunch of shit off your keyboard as fact without dates, periodical support, or citations that occurred before the Constitution was ratified breaking up the union.

The first state did not ratify the Constitution until December, 1787 and the ninth in 1788. North Carolina was an independent nation for over a year and Rhode Island for over two after the union broke up following the ratification of the Constitution. If imminent war existed how about making your citations fit the dates of history.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Hamilton never supported an income tax. He opposed the income tax by signing the Constitution, which prohibits and income tax.

That ignorant comment defies everything Hamilton argued in his brief and the history of taxation by the federal government.

It was Hamilton who argued since all taxes are derived from land and paid by individuals personal property is not property in the same sense land is.

It was Hamilton who demonstrated personal property is consumable goods and a tax on carriages is a tax on an expense.

The opposite of taxing an expense is taxing income.

It was clearly Hamilton who set precedent for defining the meaning of vague terms such as direct and indirect in economic context.


My point is that people here need to stop complaining about Hamilton, and start complaining about people today who enable the income tax.

My point is if there is any blaming to be done people ought to blame themselves.

Don't waste resources on electoral politics and a vague document. Geographically organize, replace it, and take personal responsibility to do something about it.

[CCTelander]

Elitist, mercantilist scumbags can have a "good side"? News to me.

[Galileo Galilei]

That ignorant comment defies everything Hamilton argued in his brief and the history of taxation by the federal government.

It was Hamilton who argued since all taxes are derived from land and paid by individuals personal property is not property in the same sense land is.

It was Hamilton who demonstrated personal property is consumable goods and a tax on carriages is a tax on an expense.

The opposite of taxing an expense is taxing income.

It was clearly Hamilton who set precedent for defining the meaning of vague terms such as direct and indirect in economic context.



My point is if there is any blaming to be done people ought to blame themselves.

Don't waste resources on electoral politics and a vague document. Geographically organize, replace it, and take personal responsibility to do something about it.

Hamilton never supported an income tax. He opposed the income tax. That's your problem. Deal with it.

[Galileo Galilei]

You have not established anything. You are just rolling a bunch of shit off your keyboard as fact without dates, periodical support, or citations that occurred before the Constitution was ratified breaking up the union.

The first state did not ratify the Constitution until December, 1787 and the ninth in 1788. North Carolina was an independent nation for over a year and Rhode Island for over two after the union broke up following the ratification of the Constitution. If imminent war existed how about making your citations fit the dates of history.

Tempest at Dawn

YouTube - Tempest at Dawn (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oa_n02UoJ6A&feature=player_embedded)

[AuH20]

Hamilton never supported an income tax. He opposed the income tax by signing the Constitution, which prohibits and income tax.

This fact alone makes Hamilton small government by today's standards.

My point is that people here need to stop complaining about Hamilton, and start complaining about people today who enable the income tax.

True. Hamilton is unfairly savaged with many unsubstantiated accusations. Comparing a modern day Fabian Socialist to Alexander Hamilton is like comparing Night to Day.