"The Constitution was intended to expand power of the government"

[Arion45]

It did. All the congress had to do was set up an alliance with the military, declare an emergency and then do it. Under the AoC, power was centralized into one body. There was no Supreme Court or executive branch to stop them.

Except for the individual sovereign states that did not want to loose their power. Did we forget about that?

 

[crazyfacedjenkins]

That's what the Revolution was, a secession. The British then invaded us. So we had to raise an army on borrowed money to fight them off. You still dodged the question as how to pay the US military officers and soldiers. In fact, all the AoC defenders have dodged it. Because you are ignorant of hisory and think you are smarter & more patriotic than our Founders. You're not.

says who?

What about civil disobedience or political action? Obviously you favor nonviolence over using your 2nd amendment right to overthrow the government because either you feel it works better or...

you are just plain chicken.

YouTube - back to the future 2 Marty McFly - chicken?

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Except for the individual sovereign states that did not want to loose their power. Did we forget about that?

Wrong. These states also had militia's that had not been paid. All the continental army do is set up an alliance with a few state militia's. That's what usually happens after revolutions, civil wars, and secessions.

The fact is; when you secede from a military empire, the military empire will resist. So the people resisting will need money they don't have to pay their army and militias. If the people seceding and revolting are able to win the battles and wars, then the provisional governments will owe large debts to the military. If they don't pay, the military just arrests the government or declare an emergency. This has happened thousands of times in world history. One of the few places it did not happen was in the United States.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

says who?

What about civil disobedience or political action? Obviously you favor nonviolence over using your 2nd amendment right to overthrow the government because either you feel it works better or...

you are just plain chicken.

YouTube - back to the future 2 Marty McFly - chicken?

Civil obedience to make the British army and navy to leave the port of Boston? Or to leave Manhattan? Or to stop the siege of Charleston? You deny the right of self-defense.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

1790
1798

And worst of all, 1861.

The fact that all these things happened within 100 years, some within 10 years, shows that the Constitutional order is really weak. If Jefferson died sooner for some reason, the First Central Bank probably would've collapsed the fledging country. So the complete centralization of power didn't happen within the lifetime of the Founders due to exceptional circumstances, such as having exceptional people like Jefferson, not because of having the Constitution. And now, not even exceptional people can stop the centralization. Google "Barry Goldwater" to see what I am talking about.

Baloney. If the Founding Fathers had followed your advice, the military would have just arrested the government for non-payment and set up a military dictatorship right from the beginning. Take a look at what happened in Mexico and South America not long after to see what usually happens.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Let me know when you have something to present that can actually be discussed. Do your own googling to substantiate your claims.

No, you do your own research. The Founding Fathers did their research. You simply don't know what you are talking about. Explain to me how the AoC government was going to pay the military what was owed to them. Read a book about the secession of Mexico from the Spanish Empire.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

No, you do your own research. The Founding Fathers did their research. You simply don't know what you are talking about. Explain to me how the AoC government was going to pay the military what was owed to them. Read a book about the secession of Mexico from the Spanish Empire.

Your claiming 75 million owed to the military. I am not doing your research. I don't have a problem citing or sourcing something utilizing information available online. And if I had to scan something from a book or other source not available online I can do that to.

If you can't do your own research to present something substantiating your claim of 75 million owed to the military there is nothing to talk about.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

While I am waiting for you to get a clue and pony up something to substantiate your claim how about those private Acts of Congress....

Chapter XXVI.—An Act to allow the Baron de Glaubeck the pay of a Captain in the Army of the United States.September 29, 1789.

The pay of a captain allowed to Baron de Glaubeck.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the pay of a captain in the army of the United States be allowed to the Baron de Glaubeck, from the ninth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-one, to the twenty-fourth day of August, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-two, to be paid in the same manner as other foreign officers in the service of the United States have been paid.

Approved, September 29, 1789.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That John White, late a commissioner to settle the accounts between the United States and the states of Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland, and his clerks, John Wright, and Joshua Dawson, be considered as in office until the fourth day of February, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine.

Approved, September 29, 1789.

Chap. XVI.—An Act for finally adjusting and satisfying the claims of Frederick William de Steuben.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That, in order to make full and adequate compensation to Frederick William de Steuben, for the sacrifices and eminent services made and rendered to the United States during the late war, there be paid to the said Frederick William de Steuben, Annuity of 2,500 dols. for life, in full of claims. an annuity of two thousand five hundred dollars, during life, to commence on the first day of January last; to be paid in quarterly payments, at the treasury of the United States; which said annuity shall be considered in full discharge of all claims and demands whatever, of the said Frederick William de Steuben against the United States.

Approved, June 4, 1790.

Chap. XX.—An Act for the relief of Thomas Jenkins and Company.

Duties on certain goods lost by fire, remitted.Be it enacted, &c., That the duties, amounting to one hundred and sixty-seven dollars and fifty cents, be remitted on a parcel of hemp, duck, ticklenburg, and molasses, the property of Thomas Jenkins and Company, merchants, of the city of Hudson, in the State of New York, which were lost by fire in the brig Minerva, on her passage from New York to the city of Hudson, her port of delivery: and the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States is hereby authorized and directed to allow a credit on the bond or bonds executed by the said Thomas Jenkins and Company, for payment of the duties on the said goods.

Approved, June 14, 1790.

Chap. XXIV.—An Act for the relief of Nathaniel Twining.

Penalty remitted to N. Twining.Be it enacted, &c., That the penalty, amounting to five hundred and sixty-seven dollars and forty-one cents, incurred by Nathaniel Twining, for a failure in neglecting to transport the mail between Charleston and Savannah, from the month of September, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, until the first of January, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, pursuant to a contract made with the late postmaster-general, shall be, and the same is hereby remitted.

Approved, July 1, 1790.

Chap. XXIII.—An Act to satisfy the claims of John McCord against the United States.

Payment to John McCord, in full of all claims.Be it enacted, &c., That there be paid to John McCord, out of the duties arising on impost and tonnage, the sum of eight hundred nine dollars seventy-one cents, being the amount of his account against the United States, as settled and admitted by the Auditor and Comptroller of the Treasury, on a bill of exchange dated the fifth of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy-six, drawn in Canada for supplies, by General William Thompson, General William Irvine and other officers, in favor of William Pagan, on Messieurs Meredith and Clymer of Philadelphia: And the farther sum of five hundred dollars, in full of all his claims and demands against the United States, as well for lands and rations granted by several resolutions of Congress to Canadian sufferers, as on any other account whatsoever.

Approved, July 1, 1790.

Chap. XXXVII.—An Act for the relief of John Stewart and John Davidson.

Remission of duty on a certain quantity of salt.Be it enacted, &c., That so much of the duties accruing on eighteen hundred bushels of salt, imported in the ship Mercury, into the port of Annapolis, in the state of Maryland, some time in the month of April last, on account of Messieurs John Stewart and John Davidson, as relates to thirteen hundred and twenty-five bushels thereof, which were casually destroyed by a flood on the night of the same day on which the said salt was landed and stored, shall be, and the same are hereby remitted.

Approved, August 4, 1790.

Chap. XLIV.—An Act for the relief of disabled soldiers and seamen lately in the service of the United States, and of certain other persons.

Persons entitled to pensions, and at what rate.Be it enacted, &c., That Stephen Calilfe, Jeremiah Ryan, Joseph M’Gibbon, Samuel Garretson, Ephraim M’Coy, Christian Kuhn, David Steele, Joseph Shuttliet, and Daniel Culver, disabled soldiers lately in the service of the United States, be allowed pensions at the rate of five dollars per month from the time their pay in the army respectively ceased. That Christian Wolfe, a disabled soldier, be allowed a pension at the rate of four dollars per month from the date of his discharge. That Edward Scott, a disabled soldier, be allowed a pension at the rate of three dollars per month from the date of his discharge. That David Weaver and George Schell, disabled soldiers, be each allowed a pension, at the rate of two dollars per month, from the date of their respective discharges. That Seth Boardman, a disabled soldier, be allowed a pension, at the rate of three dollars and one-third of a dollar per month, from the seventeenth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-six. That Severinus Koch, a disabled captain of Colonel Jacob Klock’s regiment of New York militia, be allowed a pension, at the rate of five dollars per month, from the twentieth day of August, one thousand seven hundred and seventy-seven. That John Younglove, a disabled major, of Colonel Lewis Van Woort’s regiment of New York militia, be allowed a pension, at the rate of six dollars per month, from the thirtieth day of July, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-one. That William White, a disabled private of Colonel Williams’ regiment of New York militia, be allowed a pension, at the rate of three dollars and one-third of a dollar per month, from the first day of April, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-six. That Jacob Newkerk, a disabled soldier of Colonel John Harper’s regiment of New York state troops, be allowed a pension, at the rate of three dollars per month, from the twenty-second day of October, one thousand seven hundred and eighty. That David Poole, a disabled seaman, lately in the service of the United States, be allowed a pension of five dollars per month, to commence on the fifth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine.

Sum granted and pension allowed to Caleb Brewster.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That Caleb Brewster, lately a lieutenant, who was wounded and disabled in the service of the United States, be allowed three hundred forty-eight dollars and fifty-seven cents, the amount of his necessary expenses for sustenance and medical assistance, while dangerously ill of his wounds, including the interest to the first of July, one thousand seven hundred and ninety. And that the said Brewster be allowed a pension equal to his half pay as lieutenant, from the third of November, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three, he first having returned his commutation of half pay.

Pension allowed to N. Gove.Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That Nathaniel Gove, a disabled lieutenant, lately in the service of the United States, be allowed a pension, at the rate of six dollars and two-thirds of a dollar per month, from the twentieth of May, one thousand seven hundred and seventy-eight, to the first day of July, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-six, and that he be allowed at the rate of thirteen dollars and one-third of a dollar per month, from the said first day of July, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-six.

Sec. 4. And be it further enacted,Commissioner of army accounts to settle pay of certain officers. That the commissioner of army accounts be authorized and directed to settle the pay and depreciation of pay of John Stevens, a hostage in the late war at the capitulation of the cedars, as a captain in the line of the army, and that he issue certificates accordingly. That he also issue a certificate to Charles Markley, lately a captain in Armand’s corps, for the commutation of his half pay. That he also settle the accounts of James Derry, and Benjamin Hardison, who were made prisoners in Canada in May one thousand seven hundred and seventy-six, and forcibly detained in captivity among the Indians, and that he issue certificates for the balance of their pay respectively, to the third of November, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three.

Sec. 5. And be it further enacted,The pensions to be paid according to laws made, or that hereafter may be made.
Act of Aug. 11, 1790, ch. 45, sec. 3.
Act of March 23, 1792, ch. 11. That the several pensions mentioned in this act, due or to become due from the fifth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine, shall be paid, according to such laws as have been made, or shall be made relative to invalid pensioners: and that the arrears of the said pensions, due before the said fifth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine, shall be paid in such manner as Congress may hereafter provide for paying the arrears of pensions.

Sec. 6. And be it further enacted,Allowance to S. Harding. That there shall be allowed to Seth Harding, for three months and ten days’ services on board the Alliance frigate, during the late war, at the rate of sixty dollars per month, being the pay of a captain, to be paid out of the moneys arising from imposts and tonnage.

Approved, August 11, 1790.

Chap. ⅩⅬⅤ.—An Act for the relief of the persons therein mentioned or described.

Be it enacted, &c.Register of the treasury to grant a certificate to S. Stirling. That the register of the treasury shall, and is hereby required to grant unto Sarah, the widow of the late Major-General Earl of Stirling, who died in the service of the United States, a certificate to entitle her to a sum equal to an annuity for seven years’ half pay of a major-general, to commence as from the fourteenth day of January, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three, in conformity to the act of the late Congress, passed on the twenty-fourth day of August, one thousand seven hundred and eighty; the amount for which the said certificate is to be granted, to be ascertained by the Secretary of the Treasury, and on similar principles as other debts of the United States are liquidated and certified.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted,To Frances E. Laurens. That the said register shall grant To Frances unto Frances Eleanor Laurens, the orphan daughter of the late Lieutenant-Colonel John Laurens, who was killed whilst in the service of the United States, a certificate to entitle her to a sum equal to an annuity for seven years’ half pay of a lieutenant-colonel, to commence as from the twenty-fifth day of August, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-two, according to the act of the late Congress of the twenty-fourth day of August, one thousand seven hundred and eighty; the amount for which the said certificate is to be granted, to be ascertained by the Secretary of the Treasury in manner aforesaid.

And whereasArrears of pensions. no provision hath heretofore been made for discharging the arrears of pensions due to officers, non-commissioned officers, and soldiers, who were wounded and disabled whilst in the service of the United States: Therefore,

Sec. 3. Be it further enacted,To invalid pensioners. That each of the officers, non-commissioned officers, and soldiers, who were so wounded and disabled, and who are now placed on the books in the office of the secretary for the department of war, as a pensioner, or to be so placed in conformity to any law of this Congress, shall receive from the register of the treasury, who is hereby required to grant the same, a certificate, to be liquidated and settled in such manner as the Secretary of the Treasury shall direct, for a sum equal to the pension annually due to him, to commence from the time he became entitled thereto, or from the time to which the same had been paid, as the case may be, which shall be ascertained and certified by the said secretary for the department of war, and which annuity shall be liquidated to the fourth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine, from which day the United States have assumed the payment of the pensions certified by the several states. And in case of the death of any person so entitled, the certificate shall pass to his heirs or legal representative or representatives.

Sec. 4. And be it further enacted,To widows and orphans of officers and soldiers. That the widow or orphan of each officer, non-commissioned officer, or soldier, who was killed or died whilst in the service of the United States, and who is now placed on the books in the office of the said secretary, as entitled to a pension, by virtue of any act of the said late Congress, or any law of this Congress, and for whom provision has not been made by any state, and to whom any arrears of such pension are due, and which have arisen prior to the said fourth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine, shall receive a certificate therefor in like manner, and on the same principles, as certificates are by this act directed to be given to officers, non-commissioned officers, and soldiers, who were wounded or disabled as aforesaid.

Approved, August 11, 1790.

Aug. 2, 1790.

Resolution No. 3.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled,Compensation of clerks. That the clerks in the office of the commissioner of army accounts are entitled to receive for their services a sum not exceeding five hundred dollars, to be paid in the same manner, and at the same rate, as the salary allowed to the clerks in the Department of Treasury; and that the auditor and comptroller be authorized to adjust the accounts of the clerks in the said office, upon the same principles as those of the treasury department, agreeably to the appropriation by law.

Approved, August 2, 1790.

75 million for the military eh.... still waiting for the breakdown...

 

[Galileo Galilei]

While I am waiting for you to get a clue and pony up something to substantiate your claim how about those private Acts of Congress....





















75 million for the military eh.... still waiting for the breakdown...

You are making my point. The military wasn't being paid under the AoC. The AoC was a big rip-off to thousands of people.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

You are making my point. The military wasn't being paid under the AoC. The AoC was a big rip-off to thousands of people.

If paying out for fires and floods is making your point the military was due 75 mil them I am doing a great job illustrating you can't read.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

If paying out for fires and floods is making your point the military was due 75 mil them I am doing a great job illustrating you can't read.

You don't it. The military actually voted to go and arrest the AoC congress because they were not paid, in the Newburgh conspiracy of March, 1783.. The plan was thwarted by George Washington, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton, otherwise a coup would have happened. The $75 million includes debts to soldiers, officers, banks, and other military contractors. Typically, a coup will involve a coalition among groups that are owed money. Banks and the military often work together in a coup.

You have absolutely NO ANSWER for these issues. The Founding Fathers did NOT WANT a military coup, possibly supported by banks and military contractors. That's why they wanted to get rid of the AoC or at least make severe modifications.

The military debts is also the reason George Washington signed the bank bill that was opposed by Madison and Jefferson. Washington felt that the debts could not be paid without a bank under the control of the government. It was a very close call. The bank was not to "stabilize the economy" as liberal historians tell us.

Even with the bank, a lot of people were still ripped off and never paid and paid less than they were owed, or slow payed. But the number was substantially decreased.

 

[crazyfacedjenkins]

Civil obedience to make the British army and navy to leave the port of Boston? Or to leave Manhattan? Or to stop the siege of Charleston? You deny the right of self-defense.

Yes, wouldn't be the only time it was used successfully against the Britts.

"One of its earliest massive implementations was brought about by Egyptians against the British occupation in the nonviolent 1919 Revolution[3]. Civil disobedience is one of the many ways people have rebelled against what they deem to be unfair laws. It has been used in many well-documented nonviolent resistance movements in India (Gandhi's campaigns for independence from the British Empire), in Czechoslovakia's Velvet Revolution and in East Germany to oust their communist governments [4][5], in South Africa in the fight against apartheid, in the American Civil Rights Movement, in the Singing Revolution to bring independence to the Baltic countries from the Soviet Union, recently with the 2003 Rose Revolution in Georgia and the 2004 Orange Revolution[6] in Ukraine, among other various movements worldwide"

--source

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Yes, wouldn't be the only time it was used successfully against the Britts.

"One of its earliest massive implementations was brought about by Egyptians against the British occupation in the nonviolent 1919 Revolution[3]. Civil disobedience is one of the many ways people have rebelled against what they deem to be unfair laws. It has been used in many well-documented nonviolent resistance movements in India (Gandhi's campaigns for independence from the British Empire), in Czechoslovakia's Velvet Revolution and in East Germany to oust their communist governments [4][5], in South Africa in the fight against apartheid, in the American Civil Rights Movement, in the Singing Revolution to bring independence to the Baltic countries from the Soviet Union, recently with the 2003 Rose Revolution in Georgia and the 2004 Orange Revolution[6] in Ukraine, among other various movements worldwide"

--source

The civil disobedience preceded the war. James Otis started it in 1760, and it lasted 15 years.

The British were attempting a divide and conquer approach. That's what the US empire is doing right now in the Middle East and Iraq.

In the rest of the British Empire between 1588 and WWI, civil disobedience rarely worked.

 

[low preference guy]

Baloney. If the Founding Fathers had followed your advice, the military would have just arrested the government for non-payment and set up a military dictatorship right from the beginning.

delusional as usual.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

You don't it. The military actually voted to go and arrest the AoC congress because they were not paid, in the Newburgh conspiracy of March, 1783.. The plan was thwarted by George Washington, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton, otherwise a coup would have happened. The $75 million includes debts to soldiers, officers, banks, and other military contractors. Typically, a coup will involve a coalition among groups that are owed money. Banks and the military often work together in a coup.

You have absolutely NO ANSWER for these issues. The Founding Fathers did NOT WANT a military coup, possibly supported by banks and military contractors. That's why they wanted to get rid of the AoC or at least make severe modifications.

The military debts is also the reason George Washington signed the bank bill that was opposed by Madison and Jefferson. Washington felt that the debts could not be paid without a bank under the control of the government. It was a very close call. The bank was not to "stabilize the economy" as liberal historians tell us.

Even with the bank, a lot of people were still ripped off and never paid and paid less than they were owed, or slow payed. But the number was substantially decreased.

I agree the Constitution was about money not "forming a more perfect union". Which amazes me you even claimed the Constitution never authorized diverse taxation earlier in the thread opposing income tax when the Constitution was all about tax to pay creditor interests using coercion. The question is not whether it is about money, the question is who claimed they were owed money, what for, who got paid, and who didn't. Since you are still unwilling or unable to provide a breakdown of the debt substantiating your claim there is no discussion.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

delusional as usual.

Yeah, right. You don't know your history. Lack of pay is the # 1 pretense for a military coup during a time of turbulence. It has been going on for thousands of years.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

I agree the Constitution was about money not "forming a more perfect union". Which amazes me you even claimed the Constitution never authorized diverse taxation earlier in the thread opposing income tax when the Constitution was all about tax to pay creditor interests using coercion. The question is not whether it is about money, the question is who claimed they were owed money, what for, who got paid, and who didn't. Since you are still unwilling or unable to provide a breakdown of the debt substantiating your claim there is no discussion.

So you oppose paying the military what is owed to them? Tell that to the military and they will arrest you. You are essentially an advocate for military dictatorship.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Yeah, right. You don't know your history. Lack of pay is the # 1 pretense for a military coup during a time of turbulence. It has been going on for thousands of years.

Perhaps (I haven't spoken to LPG personally), but you twist what little you know to fit your neo-federalist agenda, even though more knowlegable folks have been pwning that nonsense for decades.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Yeah, right. You don't know your history. Lack of pay is the # 1 pretense for a military coup during a time of turbulence. It has been going on for thousands of years.

An excellent reason not to have a standing army in the first place!

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

So you oppose paying the military what is owed to them? Tell that to the military and they will arrest you. You are essentially an advocate for military dictatorship.

Since the conversation is going to be propaganda only as you have no facts to present, here is a nice excerpt:

Hamilton’s assumption plan, by which the Federal government assumed the state’s unpaid debts, catered to the upper classes solely in order to transfer their loyalty from the state to the new central government. The means of doing this, as Madison, Rush, and others protested, was immoral, since the original owners of the securities had had to sell them at a great loss to speculators, who now stood to gain unconscionably. But Hamilton was here, and in his other state papers, only concerned with the overriding principle of establishing the public credit of the new nation so that the central government would be strengthened, American natural resources developed, and a capitalist economy settled upon the land. His critics, he believed, had no theory, no general principles. “Can that man be a systematic or able statesman who has none,” he asked “I believe not. No general principles will hardly work much better than erroneous ones. Apparently, it meant little to Hamilton that Revolutionary War veterans, their widows and children, and other poor people would suffer from this political manipulation. But, then, Hamilton in his utopian scheme for a great Federal power was prepared to use immoral means, and, as pointed out above, he had never subscribed to the Declaration of Independence with its doctrine of the natural rights of the person.

Hamilton, unlike Jefferson, never seems to have understood the Western concept of the person and his inalienable rights. His reading, evidently, was confined to highly selective ancient and modern authors like Demosthenes, Cicero, Plutarch, Bacon, Montaigne, Machiavelli, and Rousseau. In the company of the great majority of his American contemporaries, he knew next to nothing about the Middle Ages and its Christian teaching of the primacy of the person made in the image of God. He was acquainted with natural law, for it was of course an integral part of the 18th century world-view, but from Locke’s Treatise of Government Hamilton seems to have drawn implications that led more to corporate idealism and collectivism of Rousseau than to the individualism of Jefferson. In any case, the Frenchman’s concept of the “general will” rather than Locke’s majority will was the fundamental tenet of Hamilton’s political philosophy, at leasr before 1800. Accordingly, there was no place for minority rights, natural rights to life, liberty, and property in his ideal state which he tried to construct as secretary of the Treasury and adviser to Washington.

Like Rousseau and all utopians, secular and religious, Hamilton justified coercion of the individual—forcing him to be free, Rousseau called it—in order to achieve the perfect society of his dream. Freedom was a great treasure, Hamilton agreed with the ideologues, propagandists, social engineers, and manipulators of all ages, but it must be organized against abuse. Unrestrained man’s freedom degenerated into license and anarchy. “Shall the general will prevail, or the will of a faction? Shall there be government or no government,” was the way Hamilton put it in his “Tully” essays of 1794, written to prepare the people for the Federal government’s military action against the Whiskey Rebels—Pennsylvania frontiersmen who opposed his excise tax—which he was already planning.(29) And Hamilton himself in September of that year, fantasizing about military glory, rode out with a militia army of 12,000 men to force the Whiskey insurgents to be free!

Just as he morally never appreciated the person’s infinite worth, viewing man with Calvin and Hobbes rather than Locke, so Hamilton could never advance in his social and political thinking to the concept of localism, better, of subsidiarity, as normative in man’s relationship to other men. His twisted conception of human nature prevented him from seeing that “Every agent is perfected by its own activity,” which is the principle of subsidiarity. Society, he failed to see, exists only in and for its members. It has no higher unity under which the individual is subsumed, no ethical priority over its members. The common good, which Hamilton as a utopian confused with the totalitarian “general will” of Rousseau, and which he used force to impose on the backwoodsmen of western Pennsylvania, required that he place the good of the Whiskey insurgents before the collectivity of his ideal state. The common good also required that, as Madison proposed, the Federal government in its funding program discriminate between the original holders of certificates and speculators, but Hamilton himself would brook none of that. Like today’s Marxists and other totalitarians, Hamilton did not realize that society, the state, or any organization exists for the good of the individual and not vice versa, that the community’s raison detat is to help man actualize the powers that God has given him.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/history/us/ah0015.html

Since the Federalists, who brought the misery of super sized central government upon the American people, were unable to clean up their own ranks ridding us of Hamiltonians, I do not predict Federalists surviving round three of an American Revolution. They will become an extinct species in America buried right along side their Federalist Hamiltonian allies.

P.S. Under Hamilton's debt plan it was only about 54 million... 27 million in domestic debt, 26 million of State debt, and 11 million of foreign debt. But not all debt was included:

North Carolina Army certificate, unspecified interest, 1 May 1786. Authorized December 1785, these were excluded from the federal debt assumption plan in 1790 because of irregularities in their issue.

http://www.masshist.org/findingaids/doc.cfm?fa=fao0004

Let me know when you have a breakdown to share on that 75 mil.