Antifederalist No. 74: The President As Military King

[Anti Federalist]

Antifederalist No. 74: The President As Military King

Charles Burris

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog...litary-king-2/

In the passionate and heated debate over the ratification of the Constitution between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists (actually between the nationalists and the federal republicans), there appeared this prescient warning of the forthcoming “imperial presidency.” Since the days of Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Harry Truman, to the present, there has been no doubt that we foreswore the American republic and the rule of law for that of empire and the extra constitutional Deep State.

Actions have consequences.

Antifederalist No. 74: The President As Military King

Before martial law is declared to be the supreme law of the land, and your character of free citizens be changed to that of the subjects of a military king-which are necessary consequences of the adoption of the proposed constitution – let me admonish you in the name of sacred liberty, to make a solemn pause. Permit a freeman to address you, and to solicit your attention to a cause wherein yourselves and your posterity are concerned. The sun never shone upon a more important one. It is the cause of freedom of a whole continent of yourselves and of your fellow men. . . . A conspiracy against the freedom of America, both deep and dangerous, has been formed by an infernal junto of demagogues. Our thirteen free commonwealths are to be consolidated into one despotic monarchy. Is not this position obvious? Its evidence is intuitive . . . . Who can deny but the president general will be a king to all intents and purposes, and one of the most dangerous kind too-a king elected to command a standing army. Thus our laws are to be administered by this tyrant; for the whole, or at least the most important part of the executive department is put in his hands. A quorum of 65 representatives, and of 26 senators, with a king at their head, are to possess powers that extend to the lives, the liberties, and property of every citizen of America. This novel system of government, were it possible to establish it, would be a compound of monarchy and aristocracy, the most accursed that ever the world witnessed. About 50 (these being a quorum) of the well born, and a military king, with a standing army devoted to his will, are to have an uncontrolled power. . . . There is not a tincture of democracy in the proposed constitution, except the nominal elections of the president general and the illustrious Congress be supposed to have some color of that nature. But this is a mere deception, invented to gull the people into its adoption. Its framers were well aware that some appearance of election ought to be observed, especially in regard to the first Congress; for without such an appearance there was not the smallest probability of their having it organized and set in operation. But let the wheels of this government be once cleverly set in motion, and I’ll answer for it, that the people shall not be much troubled with future elections, especially in choosing their king-the standing army will do that business for them. The thoughts of a military officer possessing such powers, as the proposed constitution vests in the president general, are sufficient to excite in the mind of a freeman the most alarming apprehensions; and ought to rouse him to oppose it at all events. Every freeman of America ought to hold up this idea to himself: that he has no superior but God and the laws. But this tyrant will be so much his superior, that he can at any time he thinks proper, order him out in the militia to exercise, and to march when and where he pleases. His officers can wantonly inflict the most disgraceful punishment on a peaceable citizen, under pretense of disobedience, or the smallest neglect of militia duty.

The President-general, who is to be our king after this government is established, is vested with powers exceeding those of the most despotic monarch we know of in modern times. What a handsome return have these men [the authors of the Constitution made to the people of America for their confidence! Through the misconduct of these bold conspirators we have lost the most glorious opportunity that any country ever had to establish a free system of government. America under one purely democratical, would be rendered the happiest and most powerful nation in the universe. But under the proposed one composed of an elective king and a standing army, officered by his sycophants, the starvelings of the Cincinnati, and an aristocratical Congress of the well-born-an iota of happiness, freedom, or national strength cannot exist. What a pitiful figure will these ungrateful men make in history; who, for the hopes of obtaining some lucrative employment, or of receiving a little more homage from the rest of their fellow creatures, framed a system of oppression that must involve in its consequences the misery of their own offspring . . . . Some feeble attempts have been made by the advocates of this system of tyranny, to answer the objections made to the smallness of the number of representatives and senators, and the improper powers delegated to them. But, as far as I recollect, no one has been found bold enough to stand forth in defense of that dangerous and uncontrolled officer, the President-General, or more properly, our new King. A few pieces under the signature of An American Citizen’ were published immediately after the Constitution broke the shell, and the hydra made its way from the dark conclave into the open light. In the first number the writer, in touching on the President, endeavored to conceal his immense powers, by representing the King of Great Britain as possessed of many hereditary prerogatives, rights and powers that he was not possessed of; that is, he shows what he is not, but neglects to show what he really is. But so flimsy a palliative could scarce escape the censure of the most ignorant advocate for such an officer; and since [then] we hear of no further attempts to prove the necessity of a King being set over the freemen of America. The writer of these essays has clearly proven, that the President is a King to all intents and purposes, and at the same time one of the most dangerous kind too – an elective King, the commander in chief of a standing army, etc. And to those add, that he has a negative power over the proceedings of both branches of the legislature. And to complete his uncontrolled sway, he is neither restrained nor assisted by a privy council, which is a novelty in government. I challenge the politicians of the whole continent to find in any period of history a monarch more absolute. . . .

“PHILADELPHIENSIS,” who was influenced by Thomas Paine (in “Common Sense), wrote the above selection. It is taken from 3 essays which appearing February 6 & 20, and April 9 of 1788 in either The Freeman’s Journal or, The North-American Intelligencer.

George Clinton; Robert Yates; Samuel Bryan (2008-06-23). Anti-Federalist Papers (Kindle Locations 4694-4704). Misbach Enterprises. Kindle Edition.

Court historian and Federalist apologist Cecelia M. Kenyon, professor of government at Smith College, was the editor of The Antifederalists, and author of the infamous 1955 article, “Men of Little Faith: The Anti-Federalists on the Nature of Representative Government.” She believed “Philadelphiensis” was probably a tutor at the University of Pennsylvania named Benjamin Workman. In his post-Watergate 1975 introduction to Etienne de la Boetie’s The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude, Murray N. Rothbard observed: “Twenty years ago, the historian, Cecelia Kenyon, writing of the Anti-Federalist opponents of the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, chided them for being “men of little faith”- little faith, that is, in a strong central government. It is hard to think of anyone having such unexamined faith in government today.”

Other writings of the Antifederalists can be found here.

[Anti Federalist]

What The Antifederalists Were For

Charles Burris

My earlier LRC blog on the Antifederalists has drawn much interest and enthusiastic support. My own interest in these true heroes of the Revolution goes back to my undergraduate studies in political science over forty years ago and has never wavered. There is a wealth of in-depth scholarly treatments of the demographic, socioeconomic backgrounds and ideological beliefs of the Antifederalists (who constituted a majority of persons living in the newly formed thirteen states and commonwealths of the republic). Here is a select assortment of such sources: Jonathan Marshall, Empire or Liberty: The Anti-federalists and Foreign Policy, 1787-1788; James P. Philbin, The Political Economy of the Antifederalists; Robert E. Shalhope, Toward a Republican Synthesis: The Emergence of an Understanding of Republicanism in American Historiography; Joseph R. Stromberg, Country Ideology, Republicanism, and Libertarianism: The Thought of John Taylor of Caroline; Gary North, Conspiracy in Philadelphia: Origins of the United States Constitution; Gary Galles, The Prophetic Antifederalists; and Joseph R. Stromberg, Nothing To Learn From the Antifederalists? It Just Ain’t So.

[HVACTech]

What The Antifederalists Were For

Charles Burris

My earlier LRC blog on the Antifederalists has drawn much interest and enthusiastic support. My own interest in these true heroes of the Revolution goes back to my undergraduate studies in political science over forty years ago and has never wavered. There is a wealth of in-depth scholarly treatments of the demographic, socioeconomic backgrounds and ideological beliefs of the Antifederalists (who constituted a majority of persons living in the newly formed thirteen states and commonwealths of the republic). Here is a select assortment of such sources: Jonathan Marshall, Empire or Liberty: The Anti-federalists and Foreign Policy, 1787-1788; James P. Philbin, The Political Economy of the Antifederalists; Robert E. Shalhope, Toward a Republican Synthesis: The Emergence of an Understanding of Republicanism in American Historiography; Joseph R. Stromberg, Country Ideology, Republicanism, and Libertarianism: The Thought of John Taylor of Caroline; Gary North, Conspiracy in Philadelphia: Origins of the United States Constitution; Gary Galles, The Prophetic Antifederalists; and Joseph R. Stromberg, Nothing To Learn From the Antifederalists? It Just Ain’t So.

^^^^^"What The Antifederalists Were For"^^^^

so, what were they for? the paragraph never says.
and was a complete waste of my time to read.

[Anti Federalist]

^^^^^"What The Antifederalists Were For"^^^^

so, what were they for? the paragraph never says.
and was a complete waste of my time to read.

Oh, my apologies, I forgot to include the link:

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog...ists-were-for/

Click through and there are numerous links to all manner of works explaining just what the AFs were "for".

One thing they were not for was the 1787 CONstitution.

[Anti Federalist]

The President-general, who is to be our king after this government is established, is vested with powers exceeding those of the most despotic monarch we know of in modern times. What a handsome return have these men [the authors of the Constitution] made to the people of America for their confidence!

[HVACTech]

The President-general, who is to be our king after this government is established, is vested with powers exceeding those of the most despotic monarch we know of in modern times. What a handsome return have these men [the authors of the Constitution] made to the people of America for their confidence!

yawn, so which "anti-federalist" is the bolded text quoting? here we are, 250 odd years later and this has still not occurred.

you know, there are quite a few in this forum who think that a CONstitutional Monarchy is the way to go.
are you one of them?

that you reject the Founders as well as the original intent is well known.

[phill4paul]

yawn, so which "anti-federalist" is the bolded text quoting? here we are, 250 odd years later and this has still not occurred.

you know, there are quite a few in this forum who think that a CONstitutional Monarchy is the way to go.
are you one of them?

that you reject the Founders as well as the original intent is well known.

Right you are!

James Monroe, Alexander Hamilton and Nathaniel Gortham, president of the Continental CONgress, invited Prince Henry of Prussia to become King of the United States!
What a wonder that would have been! Gay rights may have started sooner rather than later.
Of course Hamilton was the proponent for the First National Bank. So buggery abounds!

[Anti Federalist]

yawn, so which "anti-federalist" is the bolded text quoting? here we are, 250 odd years later and this has still not occurred.

you know, there are quite a few in this forum who think that a CONstitutional Monarchy is the way to go.
are you one of them?

that you reject the Founders as well as the original intent is well known.

#74

You do not think we have a "king president"?

[Anti Federalist]

Right you are!

James Monroe, Alexander Hamilton and Nathaniel Gortham, president of the Continental CONgress, invited Prince Henry of Prussia to become King of the United States!
What a wonder that would have been! Gay rights may have started sooner rather than later.

He was a charming fellow:

On 25 June 1752 Henry married Princess Wilhelmina of Hesse-Kassel in Charlottenburg, but they had no children. Henry lived in Rheinsberg after receiving it as a gift from his brother. Despite the marriage, he scarcely concealed his passion for other men and developed intimate friendships with the actor Blainville and the French emigre Count La Roche-Aymon. One favourite, Major Kaphengst, exploited the prince's interest in him to lead a dissipated, wasteful life on an estate not far from Rheinsberg.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...16#post6013116

[Anti Federalist]

that you reject the Founders as well as the original intent is well known.

I reject some of the founders and their original intent: those that advocated for strong central government, a national bank and refused to acknowledge the need for a Bill of Rights, at a minimum.

[phill4paul]

He was a charming fellow:

On 25 June 1752 Henry married Princess Wilhelmina of Hesse-Kassel in Charlottenburg, but they had no children. Henry lived in Rheinsberg after receiving it as a gift from his brother. Despite the marriage, he scarcely concealed his passion for other men and developed intimate friendships with the actor Blainville and the French emigre Count La Roche-Aymon. One favourite, Major Kaphengst, exploited the prince's interest in him to lead a dissipated, wasteful life on an estate not far from Rheinsberg.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...16#post6013116

Hamilton was into buggerers. First Henry, then The First National Bank. All the wonderful regulations without representation derive from Hamilton and his argument for the CONstitutions "implied powers." Buggery abounds to this day.

[HVACTech]

I reject some of the founders and their original intent: those that advocated for strong central government, a national bank and refused to acknowledge the need for a Bill of Rights, at a minimum.

thats odd.. because I can see NONE of that in the original 1789 CONstitution.
in fact, not one word of it applied to the people. why you ask?
because it had to do with a federation of (existing) states. thats why.

Federation,
noun
1.
the act of federating or uniting in a league.
2.
the formation of a political unity, with a central government, by a number of separate states, each of which retains control of its own internal affairs.
3.
a league or confederacy.
4.
a federated body formed by a number of nations, states, societies, unions, etc., each retaining control of its own internal affairs.

[Anti Federalist]

thats odd.. because I can see NONE of that in the original 1789 CONstitution.
in fact, not one word of it applied to the people. why you ask?
because it had to do with a federation of (existing) states. thats why.

Federation,
noun
1.
the act of federating or uniting in a league.
2.
the formation of a political unity, with a central government, by a number of separate states, each of which retains control of its own internal affairs.
3.
a league or confederacy.
4.
a federated body formed by a number of nations, states, societies, unions, etc., each retaining control of its own internal affairs.

And who lives within the borders of these states to be impacted by and ruled over by edicts coming from this confederation?

Gazelles?

[phill4paul]

thats odd.. because I can see NONE of that in the original 1789 CONstitution.
in fact, not one word of it applied to the people. why you ask?
because it had to do with a federation of (existing) states. thats why.

Federation,
noun
1.
the act of federating or uniting in a league.
2.
the formation of a political unity, with a central government, by a number of separate states, each of which retains control of its own internal affairs.
3.
a league or confederacy.
4.
a federated body formed by a number of nations, states, societies, unions, etc., each retaining control of its own internal affairs.

Seems you like word play.

The political party of the "Federalist" are as akin to your definition as "Patriotism" is to the "Patriot Act."

[HVACTech]

And who lives within the borders of these states to be impacted by and ruled over by edicts coming from this confederation?

Gazelles?

CONfederation?

as in "articles of"?
seems you are also against the founders original effort.

was the "prime directive" ever Liberty?
or were our founders fools from the start?

[HVACTech]

Seems you like word play.

The political party of the "Federalist" are as akin to your definition as "Patriotism" is to the "Patriot Act."

ya know pal, both AC as well as DC. are forms of electrical power supply systems.
however. one must never confuse the two.
(they do NOT mix well)

[phill4paul]

ya know pal, both AC as well as DC. are forms of electrical power supply systems.
however. one must never confuse the two.
(they do NOT mix well)

You must be speaking of Prince Henry. I much prefer a Confederacy. Unfortunately, the Federalist Party did not see this as acceptable.

I can understand the HVAC moniker. Just a lot of hot air and cold vibes.

[presence]

His officers can wantonly inflict the most disgraceful punishment on a peaceable citizen, under pretense of disobedience

[HVACTech]

You must be speaking of Prince Henry. I much prefer a Confederacy. Unfortunately, the Federalist Party did not see this as acceptable.

I can understand the HVAC moniker. Just a lot of hot air and cold vibes.

uh-oh..
sounds like you are a "Federalist"

AF does NOT like CONFederations or Federations.

woe be unto you friend!

the choice of HVACTech was NOT as a "moniker".
it is both a warning. as well as an explanation of how I think.
I also wanted to let the people know that I could help if they have questions for me.

[phill4paul]

uh-oh..
sounds like you are a "Federalist"

AF does NOT like CONFederations or Federations.

woe be unto you friend!

Please explain, in something other than garbled and non-formative haiku, how you find this to be so.
You pretend to want discussion. Yet, you are unable.

[HVACTech]

Please explain, in something other than garbled and non-formative haiku, how you find this to be so.
You pretend to want discussion. Yet, you are unable.

in this very thread sir. AF indicated his disdain for CONfederations.
his "moniker" is "anti-federalist"

therefore, he does not support the Federation OR the "articles of CONfederation"
reasonable inference?

you on the other hand, in this very thread..
indicated that you do in fact support the founders, at least as far as the articles of confederation are concerned.
did I miss something?

[phill4paul]

in this very thread sir. AF indicated his disdain for CONfederations.
his "moniker" is "anti-federalist"

therefore, he does not support the Federation OR the "articles of CONfederation"
reasonable inference?

you on the other hand, in this very thread..
indicated that you do in fact support the founders, at least as far as the articles of confederation are concerned.
did I miss something?

In definition Confederacy > Federalism. That is all.

You put text in my mouth. Where text was not written.

Must have...missed something.

[HVACTech]

In definition Confederacy > Federalism. That is all.

You put text in my mouth. Where text was not written.

Must have...missed something.

all is good bro. HVACTechs can be REAL azzhats when talking tech.
I am an ardent supporter of the "original intent" of our founders.

what has happened after they died..
cannot be attributed to them.

and yes. I will stand firm and resolute in this position.

peace.

[Anti Federalist]

CONfederation?

as in "articles of"?
seems you are also against the founders original effort.

was the "prime directive" ever Liberty?
or were our founders fools from the start?

The prime directive of the Declaration was liberty.

The founders were men, subject to men's whim's, lusts and foolishness.

Some tried to preserve that prime directive, others, alas the successful ones, tried to subvert it.

[HVACTech]

The prime directive of the Declaration was liberty.

The founders were men, subject to men's whim's, lusts and foolishness.

Some tried to preserve that prime directive, others, alas the successful ones, tried to subvert it.

ya. Hamilton spoke of that in federalist paper #84.

"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? "

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa84.htm

[heavenlyboy34]

Anti-Federalists FTW. The AF Papers read like an amazingly accurate Nostradamus...but written in solid prose instead of vague quatrains.

[HVACTech]

Anti-Federalists FTW. The AF Papers read like an amazingly accurate Nostradamus...but able to write in solid prose instead of vague quatrains.

Brilliant! HB! absolutely Brilliant!

"A quatrain is a type of stanza, or a complete poem, consisting of four lines."



so, uh. what about that whole "CONstitutioal Monarchy" thingy..
still endorse that?

[Danke]

He was a charming fellow:

On 25 June 1752 Henry married Princess Wilhelmina of Hesse-Kassel in Charlottenburg, but they had no children. Henry lived in Rheinsberg after receiving it as a gift from his brother. Despite the marriage, he scarcely concealed his passion for other men and developed intimate friendships with the actor Blainville and the French emigre Count La Roche-Aymon. One favourite, Major Kaphengst, exploited the prince's interest in him to lead a dissipated, wasteful life on an estate not far from Rheinsberg.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...16#post6013116

That sounds right up your alley. You certianly have done your research.

[phill4paul]

ya. Hamilton spoke of that in federalist paper #84.

"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? "

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa84.htm

The death of a Republic...."Implied powers."

To return: It is conceded that implied powers are to be considered as delegated equally with express ones. Then it follows, that as a power of erecting a corporation may as well be implied as any other thing, it may as well be employed as an instrument or mean of carrying into execution any of the specified powers, as any other instrument or mean whatever. The only question must be in this, as in every other case, whether the mean to be employed or in this instance, the corporation to be erected, has a natural relation to any of the acknowledged objects or lawful ends of the government. Thus a corporation may not be erected by Congress for superintending the police of the city of Philadelphia, because they are not authorized to regulate the police of that city. But one may be erected in relation to the collection of taxes, or to the trade with foreign countries, or to the trade between the States, or with the Indian tribes; because it is the province of the federal government to regulate those objects, and because it is incident to a general sovereign or legislative power to regulate a thing, to employ all the means which relate to its regulation to the best and greatest advantage. - Hamilton.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bank-ah.asp


No warranty expressed or implied.

[Anti Federalist]

The Bill of Rights – tacked on to the Constitution by in retrospect justly suspicious anti-federalists such as Madison and Mason (and supported by men like Jefferson) was meant to be a kind of warranty against tyranny. Which was defined by them as something governments – not individuals – did.

The King. Parliament. And later, the infant federal colossus shaking its rattle in the dismal swampland near the Potomac River. The anti-federalists saw what was coming and tried to hedge against it. Tried to bind the infant colossus. On the view that once unbound, the damage such a creature is capable of causing is almost without limit.

They should have strangled it in its crib.

The human capacity for harming other humans is directly proportionate to the power wielded by some humans over other humans.

http://ericpetersautos.com/2015/10/1...nkin-warrants/