The Good Side of Alexander Hamilton

[Galileo Galilei]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[John Taylor]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Galileo Galilei]

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

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

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

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

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

Good luck.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

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

Others to blame here besides Hamilton:

George Washington for appointing all the Supreme Court Justices.

The Supreme Court Justices.

The Senate for confirming all the Justices.

The 13 State legislatures for appointing the Senators.

The People for electing the State legislatures.

No, not everybody here is stupid.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Galileo Galilei]

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

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

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

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

Hamilton was correct.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Galileo Galilei]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

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

Hamilton was correct.

Earlier you mentioned George Washington...

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

 

[Galileo Galilei]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Earlier you mentioned George Washington...

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

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

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

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

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

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

Ignorant eh

Funny you bring up the 1783 mutiny...

couple book excerpts:

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Ignorant eh

Funny you bring up the 1783 mutiny...

couple book excerpts:

Great stuff.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

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

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

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Great stuff.

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

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

 

[John Taylor]

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

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

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

 

[Galileo Galilei]

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

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

 

[Galileo Galilei]

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

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

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

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

 

[Galileo Galilei]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

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

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

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

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

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