The Federalist coup of 1787 (article)

[Galileo Galilei]

Interesting that you would quote someone like Madison who was the 18th century equivalent of a neocon imperialist. This only further diminishes your own argument and advances mine-thanks!

Neocons vs. the Real Constitution
""Madison – Madison! – is an untrustworthy guide to understanding the Constitution," as if this were a scandalous point. But Madison was a notorious flip-flopper in his own day, and with good reason. It was Madison who in 1791 argued that Hamilton’s Bank Bill was unconstitutional, before he in 1816 called on Congress to pass a new bank bill. It was Madison who in October 1787 wrote to Jefferson to lament the structure of the Senate, before he told the public how wonderful it was in two essays of The Federalist. It was Madison who in 1798 wrote the Virginia Resolutions threatening state interposition in response to the Sedition Act, before he in the early 1830s denied having done any such thing. It was Madison who in 1787–88 denied that a federal bill of rights was necessary, before he in 1789 insisted it was essential. And one could go on."

You are aware that Ron Paul's favorite Founding Father is Thomas Jefferson?

You are aware that Thomas Jefferson' best friend, for 47 years, was James Madison (1779-1826)?

You are aware that Jefferson and Madison were friends for 50 years (1776-1826)?

You are aware that Jefferson and Madison are never known to have a single argument in 50 years, and although initially differing on some issues, always came to a mutual agreement on everything?

So basically, you think Ron Paul is a neocon imperialist.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

You are aware that Ron Paul's favorite Founding Father is Thomas Jefferson?

You are aware that Thomas Jefferson' best friend, for 47 years, was James Madison (1779-1826)?

You are aware that Jefferson and Madison were friends for 50 years (1776-1826)?

You are aware that Jefferson and Madison are never known to have a single argument in 50 years, and although initially differing on some issues, always came to a mutual agreement on everything?

So basically, you think Ron Paul is a neocon imperialist.

I'm aware of a lot of things, but that doesn't change my opinion of Madison. Wow, your false conclusion about me are almost as absurd as the stuff left-liberals come up with! You are apparently very young, and have a lot of maturing and reading to do. Start by reading the whole article I quoted.

Where did you get your info on Madison and Jefferson "always came to a mutual agreement on everything"? I didn't come to that conclusion when I compared their opinions.

You also apparently missed this key quote (or didn't finish the article). (you would likely come to the opposite conclusion had you thoughtfully read the piece)

"One common tactic that the liars have adopted is to invoke Great Names in defense of their assertions. Franck notes that I say that, in his words, "Madison – Madison! – is an untrustworthy guide to understanding the Constitution," as if this were a scandalous point. But Madison was a notorious flip-flopper in his own day, and with good reason. It was Madison who in 1791 argued that Hamilton’s Bank Bill was unconstitutional, before he in 1816 called on Congress to pass a new bank bill. It was Madison who in October 1787 wrote to Jefferson to lament the structure of the Senate, before he told the public how wonderful it was in two essays of The Federalist. It was Madison who in 1798 wrote the Virginia Resolutions threatening state interposition in response to the Sedition Act, before he in the early 1830s denied having done any such thing. It was Madison who in 1787–88 denied that a federal bill of rights was necessary, before he in 1789 insisted it was essential. And one could go on. (Those interested in Madison’s inconsistency can consult my 1994 article in Essays in History, the shorter version of same in The Journal of the Early Republic for 1995, or my 1998 article in Continuity: A Journal of History.)"

edit to add more: "Mr. Franck does not know much about Madison. In his obscure tome on judicial imperialism, for example, Franck misapprehends Madison’s thinking concerning the constitutionality of the 1816 Bank Bill, which Madison believed could be justified only by precedent, not by reference to the pre-1790 meaning of the Constitution. In other words, Madison thought that the significance of the 1816 Bank Bill as a precedent could be limited by saying that it did not reflect a general doctrine of implied powers, but only a single exception, based on precedent, to the idea that Congress had only the enumerated powers. His argument was weak, but it did not amount to saying – as Franck has him concluding – that the Constitution provided no guidance in this area. We might have concluded that this argument demonstrated the futility of relying on Madison as a constitutional oracle, if Franck had not pooh-poohed my criticism of Madison as an inconsistent interpreter of the Constitution."

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Neocons vs. the Real Constitution
""Madison – Madison! – is an untrustworthy guide to understanding the Constitution," as if this were a scandalous point. But Madison was a notorious flip-flopper in his own day, and with good reason. It was Madison who in 1791 argued that Hamilton’s Bank Bill was unconstitutional, before he in 1816 called on Congress to pass a new bank bill.

In 1791, the bank bill passed 39-20 in the House, and by a wide margin in the Senate, then was signed by George Washington. Note that dozens of Founding Fathers were in the First congress, and the bank was also supported by Henry Knox, John Adams, and Alexander Hamilton in Washington's cabinet. Once passed, the bank was never challenged Constitutionally, not even by Jefferson.

In 1811, Madison, who knew war was likely, let the bank die. Madison knew that the bank might gain even more power during a war.

In January of 1815, the Congress passed a bank bill. Madison vetoed it because we were still at war, and the bill expanded the powers of the bank from the 1st bank, thereby setting a precedent that certain powers in a national bank were unconstitutional. Madison was very brave to do this, as the Hartford Convention was in session, and this was before the treaty of Ghent and the Battle of New Orleans.

In 1816, the congress passed another bank bill, that was almost exactly the same as the 1st bank, except that it contained some provisions to prevent corruption (the 1st bank was corrupt from the start, as Hamilton appointed William Duer, Hamilton's friend, as a bank officer, who began insider trading right away. Duer was a bank officer for 16 months before he was sent to prison for 7 years).

Madison reasoned that since George Wahington signed the 1st bank bill (and the other reasons cited above), a bank was Constitutional by precedent, but that only the powers granted in the 1st bank were Constitutional, not any additional powers.

Madison also decided the bank was necessary, as the nation had suffered 10 years of impressment (1000 ships seized by Britain and France, and 7000 Americans kidnapped by Britian), plus 28 months of war had depleted the treasury, plus the debt left over from the Revolutionary war. Note that whether the bank helped the economy or not (many believe it did), the bank did help the federal government pay off its debts. Since the war had opened the Great Lakes, Atlantic ocean, the Mississippi river, and the West Indies to free trade, the nation's GNP boomed.

In 1819, the Marshall Court ruled the bank Constitutional. Madison, now retired, sharply critisized the reasoning behind the decision.

In 1823, near the end of Monroe's term, Nicholas Biddle took control of the bank. As Monroe was getting old and in poor helath, he failed to notice that Biddle showed signs of being corrupt.

In 1825, John Quincy Adams became president, and failed to do anything about Biddle's corruption.

In 1828, Nicholas Trist became Andrew Jackson's private secretary. Trist was a true disciple of James Madison. He lived, walked and breathed James Madison, and spent his entire adult life promoting the ideas and legacy of James Madison. Trist was in constant contact by mail with Madison, and conversed with Andrew Jackson daily. In 1828, Jackson was elected president. (Trist remained Jackson's private secretary until 1834)

In 1832, with the debt gone way down, thanks to the economy, Jackson went to visit James Madison in Montpelier to discuss his plan to get rid of the bank once and for all. Jackson secured Madison's approval before the election. After the election, Jackson announced his plan to get rid of the bank.

Note, that in 1832, Henry Clay, the other candidate for president, also went to visit Madison in Montpelier. Clay expected to get Madison's endorsement (he didn't get it). Madison made sure their visits did not overlap.

Jackson then got rid of the bank.

So what legacy regarding a national bank was left to us from Madison?

First of all, no national bank has ever been necessary for the federal governemt since, as we now have the world's largest economy. Using the principles of anyone who understands Madison would understand that.

Also, if there is a national bank, it must be temporary, with a 20 year term max. The Fed violates that provision.

National banks must be 20% or more owned by the public. The Fed violates that as well.

National banks must not issue fiat currency, another oprinciple violated by the Fed.

National banks must not operate in utter secrecy and be audited, etc.

John Tyler of Virginia, a self-declared follower of James Madison, vetoed national bank bills when he was president in the early 1840s, using the principles of James Madison. Madison's principles were also followed by president Zachery Taylor, James Madison's 2nd cousin. And even as late as Grove Cleveleand, Madison's banking principles were still being followed.

James Madison did more to resist, and define legitmate powers of central banks than anyone in history.

It was Madison who in October 1787 wrote to Jefferson to lament the structure of the Senate, before he told the public how wonderful it was in two essays of The Federalist.

Madison and Jefferson discussed the structure of the Senate, and Madison, after critical reflection, changed his mind. In the right direction, I might add.

It was Madison who in 1798 wrote the Virginia Resolutions threatening state interposition in response to the Sedition Act, before he in the early 1830s denied having done any such thing.

This is a lie. You need to cite a source on this. I have already gone over the supposed sources, and none can be found. Gutzman has confused what Madison thought was generally Constitutional, with what Madison thought was a good or bad idea in a specific instance. Gutzman also twists the definition of the term "interposition". Madison used the term "interposition" in a way analogous with the word "resist", and not analogous to the word "nullify".

It was Madison who in 1787–88 denied that a federal bill of rights was necessary, before he in 1789 insisted it was essential. And one could go on.

"

This is an old canard. Madison initially opposed the Bill-of-Rights for these reasons:

1) rights on parchement mean little or nothing.

2) the Constitution did not grant the powers to take the fundamental rights in question.

3) listing rights might imply that rights not listed did not exist.

4) the bill-of-Rights issue was not brought up until the very end of the Constitutional Convention, when the delegates were too tired to deal with the issue. Madison did not want the Constitution killed over an issue that at that time, had little history of veing important.

Madison, after conferring with Jefferson, Maso, and others, critically reflected and changed his mind.

1) he decided that the new Constitution might have enough power to give some legal teeth to a Bill-of-Rights.

2) he decided that as a safeguard against over-reaching government was prudent.

3) he put in the 9th amendement, and did an exhausive search to make sure every important right known was included.

4) he agreed to sponsor a Bill-of-Rights, and DID IT.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Where did you get your info on Madison and Jefferson "always came to a mutual agreement on everything"? I didn't come to that conclusion when I compared their opinions.

Name one thing that Madison and Jefferson did not come to a mutual agreement on.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Name one thing that Madison and Jefferson did not come to a mutual agreement on.

1) The role and scope of the Presidency. 2) Jefferson didn't believe in mercantilism, while Madison did. (see pg 312 and of this book -I'll find more lit on this when I have time, as there's loads of stuff out there to back my position.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

The role and scope of the Presidency.

Be more specific. Name an actual issue.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Be more specific. Name an actual issue.

Number 1 is VERY specific. If you don't understand that, we can't have a reasonable conversation.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

 

[torchbearer]

Some people just can't get it through their dense skulls that the constitution represents failure. Over 200 years of history are very clear on this matter and the reasons why.

In a recent poll on this forum there was only one federalist supporter. One... the rest we're anti-federalists.

The anti-federalists we're not advocates of the present constitution, they opposed it.

nice article OP.

I'd like the articles of confederation, but that isn't what heavenlyboy is advocating. <IMHO>

 

[Galileo Galilei]

1) The role and scope of the Presidency. 2) Jefferson didn't believe in mercantilism, while Madison did. (see pg 312 and of this book -I'll find more lit on this when I have time, as there's loads of stuff out there to back my position.

Madison wasn't in favor of mercantilism, and nothing on that page lends support to your supposition.

Mercantilism is an economic system where the government gives monopoly trade rights to private companies in either certain produce or in certain geographic areas.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Some people just can't get it through their dense skulls that the constitution represents failure. Over 200 years of history are very clear on this matter and the reasons why.

In a recent poll on this forum there was only one federalist supporter. One... the rest we're anti-federalists.

The anti-federalists we're not advocates of the present constitution, they opposed it.

nice article OP.

Ever read 'Democracy in America"?

The Constitution was the greatest success in the history of the world.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

 

[newbitech]

Some people just can't get it through their dense skulls that the constitution represents failure. Over 200 years of history are very clear on this matter and the reasons why.

In a recent poll on this forum there was only one federalist supporter. One... the rest we're anti-federalists.

The anti-federalists we're not advocates of the present constitution, they opposed it.

nice article OP.

I really don't see this type of statement gaining any traction at all.

How does it further the cause of freedom and liberty to go around calling the one document that has best represented these principles over time a failure?

Are you also saying that freedom and liberty have failed? I can make a pretty good case that freedom and liberty have failed probably using the same evidence of history that you have of the constitution.

I'd love to see some of your ideas about what to do, what to support, etc.. come out in the real world. I just don't think this is going to be one of them. At least not yet. The day may very well come when the constitution finally usurped by some other rule or law. We see evidence of that happening more and more these days.

But I do hope that you understand that there are those of us who are still standing behind the freedom and liberty that the document represents and are working very hard to teach everyone in the United States about that document.

Calling it a representation of failure is at best philosophical argument that has little bearing or impact in the real world, and at worse and insult to most people working within the movement as well as an insult to the people who are still out there thinking that our government is following the rule of law under the constitution.

I understand why you have this opinion, I really do. I just think the expression of that opinion while the jury is still out for most American's is a bit premature and overbearing. I can sincerely say that I believe the history that is being written TODAY and in the coming months and years, proves you to be dead wrong. And when it is your turn to come back and eat crow for being an arrogant and pompous ass by wrongly proclaiming that my dense skull didn't allow me to see the failure of the constitution, I hope you will be here in all your glory as you are today apologizing and asking for forgiveness for being on the wrong side of the fight.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Of what? All men being created equal? Democracy? Mob rule? Rule of men? Oppression? Tyranny?

No... the Declaration of Independence was the greatest success in the history of the world. It was the Declaration of Independence that presented a new option to the word following the age of reason advocating natural law. It was the Declaration of Independence that declared to the world any government can only derive it's just powers from the people it governs and it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it should it become destructive of these ends.

The constitution was a flawed real world application of good principles. It was the Declaration of Independence that declared all men are created equal. The first constitution of the United States, the Articles of Confederation was at least close to the founding principles. The present constitution and the consolidation of power in central government was a radical departure.

Ever read 'Democracy in America"?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Hamilton's betrayal (article)

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Hamilton’s Betrayal[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] There is a tendency among Americans to think of the nation’s Founders as a group of wealthy white men who owned property, didn’t like British rule, and all thought pretty much alike. But it’s certainly not the case that they all thought alike. Two of the most famous among them, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, held to profoundly different visions of the path the nation should take. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] Jefferson believed in individual liberty and very limited government – the sort of tightly bound government that he thought the Constitution had established. He distrusted governmental power, whether in the hands of the British king’s minions or fellow Americans. He maintained that people had the right to run their own lives and should not be pawns in grand social or economic schemes of government officials. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] Hamilton’s philosophy was diametrically opposed to Jefferson’s. Hamilton thought that a strong central government was needed to bring about national prosperity and power. He was a mercantilist who rejected Adam Smith’s idea that capitalism based on the individual pursuit of self-interest was the most efficient and progressive economic system. Instead, he favored state capitalism with all its concomitants, including government control over money and credit, business subsidies, and protective tariffs. That vision requires a central government that subordinates the liberty and property of the citizens to the supposed national interest. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] Although Thomas Jefferson is the better known and more revered of the two, it is Hamilton’s philosophy that has prevailed. It didn’t happen consciously or all at once, but the last vestiges of Jeffersonianism were eradicated nearly a century ago. Hamilton’s anti-capitalist, big-government philosophy reigns supreme in the United States and steadily concentrates more and more power in the halls of government.[/FONT]


(rest of the article at the link)

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Of what? All men being created equal? Democracy? Mob rule? Rule of men? Oppression? Tyranny?

No... the Declaration of Independence was the greatest success in the history of the world. It was the Declaration of Independence that presented a new option to the word following the age of reason advocating natural law. It was the Declaration of Independence that declared to the world any government can only derive it's just powers from the people it governs and it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it should it become destructive of these ends.

The constitution was a flawed real world application of good principles. It was the Declaration of Independence that declared all men are created equal. The first constitution of the United States, the Articles of Confederation was at least close to the founding principles. The present constitution and the consolidation of power in central government was a radical departure.

+a zillion

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

 

[Galileo Galilei]

No.

If you have a point based upon your reading of this book by all means make it. If have a link to the book to objectively review your assertion please share it. I would assume the book presents a point of view based on historical documents.

It is a well known book that is assumed that educated people have read. It is based on extensive first hand observation.