The Good Side of Alexander Hamilton

[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?

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 .

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.