Who was the Greatest Founding Father?

[Galileo Galilei]

Index to the Antifederalist Papers
http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/index.htm

Are you aware that all but two of the founding fathers above supported the Constitution? (Henry, Sam Adams excepted)

And these two supported it after it was ratified.

UPDATE:

Mason also opposed, see below.

 

[krazy kaju]

1. George Mason

2. Thomas Jefferson

 

[Truth Warrior]

Are you aware that all but two of the founding fathers above supported the Constitution? (Henry, Sam Adams excepted)

And these two supported it after it was ratified.

Yes I am.

Are you aware of the total population at the time of the "ratification" and how few were even allowed to vote and of the numbers of those that voted in opposition?

Check out Article VII.

Thanks!

 

[Galileo Galilei]

1. George Mason

2. Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson supported the Constitution after Madison expalined it to him. Jefferson wanted a bill of rights added, which Madison did. Patrick Henry tried to block the bill of rights.

You'rwe right about Mason, I got him confused with Edmund Randolph. Randolph didn;t sign the Constitution, but supported it at ratification.

Mason supported the Constitution after the bill of rights was added.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Yes I am.

Are you aware of the total population at the time of the "ratification" and how few were even allowed to vote and of the numbers of those that voted in opposition?

Check out Article VII.

Thanks!

The elections for the ratification debates, at the urging of Madison, liberalized the property qualifications for voting. At the time, they were the most democratic elections the world had yet seen on a wide scale.

 

[Young Paleocon]

Why did Henry try to block the Bill of Rights?

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Yes I am.

Are you aware of the total population at the time of the "ratification" and how few were even allowed to vote and of the numbers of those that voted in opposition?

Check out Article VII.

Thanks!

Remarking on your point of opposition, you are correct, the vote was close in many states, including Virginia, New York, Massachusettes, North Carolina, and a few others.

But ALL states eventually received a majority as the issues were hashed out.

The lack of a bill-of-rights was the primary cause of rejection, and that was fixed.

Don't forget that your great hero Patrick Henry spent TWO YEARS trying to block the bill-of-rights. Wow, he's a great defender of liberty.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I have read them. They are freedom orientated. Can you site an example?

For one, in paper no. 59, Hamilton shows us how much he distrusts states and individuals.

Here's a more detailed, professional critique. I don't have time to write such essay right now, but I hope this helps illustrate my point.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Why did Henry try to block the Bill of Rights?

Henry wanted a 2nd Constitutional convention. He knew that if the bill-of-rights were passed, nobody would support a 2nd convention.

Henry, unlike Jefferson and Madison, never was able to grasp the proper power relationship between the states and the federal government.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Remarking on your point of opposition, you are correct, the vote was close in many states, including Virginia, New York, Massachusettes, North Carolina, and a few others.

But ALL states eventually received a majority as the issues were hashed out.

The lack of a bill-of-rights was the primary cause of rejection, and that was fixed.

Don't forget that your great hero Patrick Henry spent TWO YEARS trying to block the bill-of-rights. Wow, he's a great defender of liberty.

Thanks!

I'll take that as answers of "No", to my specific questions.

It looks to me like the anti-feds were the really prescient ones, as things have turned out.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

For one, in paper no. 59, Hamilton shows us how much he distrusts states and individuals.

Here's a more detailed, professional critique. I don't have time to write such essay right now, but I hope this helps illustrate my point.

So what? Almost of the founding fathers distrusted too much democracy (James Wilson, excepted).

And most of the founding fathers regarded the state governments as corrupted and unwise, including Ben Franklin and Elbridge Gerry.

At the time, the leading founding fathers all had a classical education, including the study of Greece, Rome, and the Enlightenment classics. At the state level, the representatives were frequently uneducated in these things.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Rockwell: "The Constitution would be a major improvement over what we have today. But we need to realize that the Constitution itself represented a major increase in government power over the Articles of Confederation, which would have served us quite well had it not been overthrown. I'm not impressed by the bunch that foisted the Constitution on us. They were really up to no good. We've all but forgotten that most everyone opposed it at the time. It only squeaked through once the Bill of Rights was tacked on. The Bill of Rights isn't perfect, but it at least had the advantage of spelling out what the government could not do. In a rather ingenious twist, even that has been perverted: it is now seen as a mandate for the federal government to tell lower orders of government what they cannot do, meaning that it ends up being a force for centralization. This is such a tragedy. If Patrick Henry could see what became of it, I'm sure he never would have tolerated it. The same might be true of Hamilton, for that matter. So long as we are talking about founding documents, the one that really deserves more attention is the Declaration of Independence. Now here is an inspiring document that shows us where we should go in the future!"

 

[heavenlyboy34]

rockwell: "the constitution would be a major improvement over what we have today. But we need to realize that the constitution itself represented a major increase in government power over the articles of confederation, which would have served us quite well had it not been overthrown. I'm not impressed by the bunch that foisted the constitution on us. They were really up to no good. We've all but forgotten that most everyone opposed it at the time. It only squeaked through once the bill of rights was tacked on. The bill of rights isn't perfect, but it at least had the advantage of spelling out what the government could not do. In a rather ingenious twist, even that has been perverted: It is now seen as a mandate for the federal government to tell lower orders of government what they cannot do, meaning that it ends up being a force for centralization. This is such a tragedy. If patrick henry could see what became of it, i'm sure he never would have tolerated it. The same might be true of hamilton, for that matter. So long as we are talking about founding documents, the one that really deserves more attention is the declaration of independence. Now here is an inspiring document that shows us where we should go in the future!"

+1776! :d

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Thanks!

I'll take that as answers of "No", to my specific questions.

It looks to me like the anti-feds were the really prescient ones, as things have turned out.

Really? You're going to blame the founding fathers, all of whom eventually supported the Constitution, for the failures of the 20th and 21st century?

Have you ever heard the quote that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance? After the founding generation was over, the next generations started to drop the ball.

Blaming someone 200 years ago for a problem today is just stupid. Let's blame Thomas Paine for socialism then, huh?

Have you ever read Madison's tract that he prepared before the Constitutional Convention titled "Confederacies Ancient and Modern"?

Madison studied every known confederation (that united against a powerful enemy) where he could get his hands on information, including the Greek city states, German confederations, Italian city states, etc.

Do you know what he found out?

He found that in every case, after the external threat was removed, the confederation decayed into civil wars, foreign intruges, and anarchy, all at the expense of liberty and property rights.

That why he supported a relatively strong central government at first (but way weaker than what we have today). He didn't want history to repeat itself.

Then, after the Consitution was in place, in consultation with Jefferson, he realized the central government was strong enough to survive, so he fought tooth and nail to support the plain language of the Constitution.

Jefferson and Madison founded the Virginia dynasty that lasted 24 years, finishing up with Monroe. Then John Quincy Adams basically continued their policies. Jackson wasn't bad either, although he had some good and bad deviations. But after Jackson, most of the next 8 presidents basically followed the principles of Madison, including John Tyler, Fillmore, van Buren, Pierce, and Buchanan.

These generations never solved the problem of slavery. They could have. Because they didn't, the Industrial revolution passed the South by, and opened things up for the crimes of Lincoln.

 

[Young Paleocon]

Really? You're going to blame the founding fathers, all of whom eventually supported the Constitution, for the failures of the 20th and 21st century?

Have you ever heard the quote that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance? After the founding generation was over, the next generations started to drop the ball.

Blaming someone 200 years ago for a problem today is just stupid. Let's blame Thomas Paine for socialism then, huh?

Have you ever read Madison's tract that he prepared before the Constitutional Convention titled "Confederacies Ancient and Modern"?

Madison studied every known confederation (that united against a powerful enemy) where he could get his hands on information, including the Greek city states, German confederations, Italian city states, etc.

Do you know what he found out?

He found that in every case, after the external threat was removed, the confederation decayed into civil wars, foreign intruges, and anarchy, all at the expense of liberty and property rights.

That why he supported a relatively strong central government at first (but way weaker than what we have today). He didn't want history to repeat itself.

Then, after the Consitution was in place, in consultation with Jefferson, he realized the central government was strong enough to survive, so he fought tooth and nail to support the plain language of the Constitution.

Jefferson and Madison founded the Virginia dynasty that lasted 24 years, finishing up with Monroe. Then John Quincy Adams basically continued their policies. Jackson wasn't bad either, although he had some good and bad deviations. But after Jackson, most of the next 8 presidents basically followed the principles of Madison, including John Tyler, Fillmore, van Buren, Pierce, and Buchanan.

These generations never solved the problem of slavery. They could have. Because they didn't, the Industrial revolution passed the South by, and opened things up for the crimes of Lincoln.

Even die Schweiz?

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Rockwell: "The Constitution would be a major improvement over what we have today. But we need to realize that the Constitution itself represented a major increase in government power over the Articles of Confederation, which would have served us quite well had it not been overthrown. I'm not impressed by the bunch that foisted the Constitution on us. They were really up to no good. We've all but forgotten that most everyone opposed it at the time. It only squeaked through once the Bill of Rights was tacked on. The Bill of Rights isn't perfect, but it at least had the advantage of spelling out what the government could not do. In a rather ingenious twist, even that has been perverted: it is now seen as a mandate for the federal government to tell lower orders of government what they cannot do, meaning that it ends up being a force for centralization. This is such a tragedy. If Patrick Henry could see what became of it, I'm sure he never would have tolerated it. The same might be true of Hamilton, for that matter. So long as we are talking about founding documents, the one that really deserves more attention is the Declaration of Independence. Now here is an inspiring document that shows us where we should go in the future!"

While I'm a fan and friend of Lew Rockwell, this comment is way off the mark.

First of all, almost all of the leading Founding Fathers disagreed that the Articles of Confederation would have served us well.

For one thing, doesn't Rockwell support free trade?

With the articles, all 13 colonies had trade regulations and tariffs. Can you imagine trying to engage in commerce when you have to pay taxes every time you pass through another state? Or inland states have to pay to get to the coast?

Can you imagine all the wars fought over the western lands, since each colony had conflicting claims out there?

The declaration of Independence is great, but it doesn't spell out hardly any legally binding law. The Constitution does that. People in Europe had been arguing of "natural rights" for over a century, but until they are written down into law, they don't do all that much good.

England today doesn't have a written Constitution. They have a bloated central government, too, but don't have much to fall back on.

We have the Constitution, which Ron Paul and future generations can fall back on for liberty.

 

[sailor]

John Paul Jones

 

[Truth Warrior]

Really? You're going to blame the founding fathers, all of whom eventually supported the Constitution, for the failures of the 20th and 21st century?

Have you ever heard the quote that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance? After the founding generation was over, the next generations started to drop the ball.

Blaming someone 200 years ago for a problem today is just stupid. Let's blame Thomas Paine for socialism then, huh?

Have you ever read Madison's tract that he prepared before the Constitutional Convention titled "Confederacies Ancient and Modern"?

Madison studied every known confederation (that united against a powerful enemy) where he could get his hands on information, including the Greek city states, German confederations, Italian city states, etc.

Do you know what he found out?

He found that in every case, after the external threat was removed, the confederation decayed into civil wars, foreign intruges, and anarchy, all at the expense of liberty and property rights.

That why he supported a relatively strong central government at first (but way weaker than what we have today). He didn't want history to repeat itself.

Then, after the Consitution was in place, in consultation with Jefferson, he realized the central government was strong enough to survive, so he fought tooth and nail to support the plain language of the Constitution.

Jefferson and Madison founded the Virginia dynasty that lasted 24 years, finishing up with Monroe. Then John Quincy Adams basically continued their policies. Jackson wasn't bad either, although he had some good and bad deviations. But after Jackson, most of the next 8 presidents basically followed the principles of Madison, including John Tyler, Fillmore, van Buren, Pierce, and Buchanan.

These generations never solved the problem of slavery. They could have. Because they didn't, the Industrial revolution passed the South by, and opened things up for the crimes of Lincoln.

'Lysander Spooner once said that he believed "that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize." At the same time, he could not exonerate the Constitution, for it "has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." It is hard to argue with that.' -- Thomas E. Woods Jr

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
Thomas Jefferson

 

[Truth Warrior]

While I'm a fan and friend of Lew Rockwell, this comment is way off the mark.

First of all, almost all of the leading Founding Fathers disagreed that the Articles of Confederation would have served us well.

For one thing, doesn't Rockwell support free trade?

With the articles, all 13 colonies had trade regulations and tariffs. Can you imagine trying to engage in commerce when you have to pay taxes every time you pass through another state? Or inland states have to pay to get to the coast?

Can you imagine all the wars fought over the western lands, since each colony had conflicting claims out there?

The declaration of Independence is great, but it doesn't spell out hardly any legally binding law. The Constitution does that. People in Europe had been arguing of "natural rights" for over a century, but until they are written down into law, they don't do all that much good.

England today doesn't have a written Constitution. They have a bloated central government, too, but don't have much to fall back on.

We have the Constitution, which Ron Paul and future generations can fall back on for liberty.

The Illegality, Immorality, and Violence of All Political Action
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1537946&postcount=109

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt