Posted on 08/05/2010 6:01:30 AM PDT by Michael Zak
[by Assemblyman Chuck DeVore (R-Irvine, CA), re-published with his permission]
For years I have admired Congressman Ron Paul’s principled stance on spending and the Constitution. That said, he really damaged himself when he blamed President Lincoln for the Civil War, saying, “Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war… [President Abraham Lincoln] did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic.”
This is historical revisionism of the worst order, and it must be addressed.
For Congressman Paul’s benefit – and for his supporters who may not know – seven states illegally declared their “independence” from the United States before Lincoln was sworn in as President. After South Carolina fired the first shot at Fort Sumter, four additional states declared independence...
(Excerpt) Read more at grandoldpartisan.typepad.com ...
Now the states did not secede from the Articles. There was nothing to imply that the Articles were to be the eternal government of the Union it created.
Not only that but the mechanism for creating the new form of government was placed in action by the Congress governing the Confederation. It shows the difference between a legal change of governmental form and and illegal and ex-constitutional insurrection.
Ratification was by the American People gathered in convention IN the states. States were explicitly prevented by Congress from making that decision.
Hamilton’s death was just political murder. Burr never would specify what Hamilton was supposed to explain.
The longstanding rumor is that he had suggested Burr was having an incestuous relationship with his own daughter. No way to verify it, of course. But it wasn't the first time Hamilton's gossip-prone mouth had gotten him into trouble, so there stands a good chance that he probably said something pretty vile along the lines of what is rumored.
As regards his economics compared to his contemporaries he was Malthus, Adam Smith and John Stewart Mill rolled into one.
There was definitely a tinge of Malthus in him (which is far from a good thing), though Mill's strain of anti-statism is largely at odds with Hamilton's general embrace of the same. As to Smith, the two men were at diametric opposites. There is in fact substantial evidence in the unpublished drafts that Hamilton, along with his assistant Tench Coxe, intended his Report on Manufactures to be a rebuttal of sorts to Smith's Wealth of Nations, and particularly its well known free trade sentiments.
Most of the industries H favored subsidizing were defense and others not import competing.
Not true. The single most discussed product in Hamilton's Report was iron, which was very much an import-competing industry. He also specifically identified glass, lead, copper, wool, and sugar - all well known import competitors.
Hamilton’s economics were the result of practical adaption as much as theory.
They were the result of playing politics to beneficiary interest groups that he wanted on his side.
It wasn’t well developed but there was no one capable of convincing when arrayed against him.
I'd argue that Taylor of Caroline and, to the limited extent he wrote on them in his final days, Edmund Pendleton provided more than adequate refutations of the Hamiltonian economic system.
It is quite a stretch to claim the tariff led to any claimed technological backwardness.
It's no stretch at all. Historical studies of the U.S. iron industry from the founding era to roughly the 1840's show that we lagged behind Britain's smelting techniques by years and even decades in some cases. The main cause was the increasing protection iron received after 1816.
Burr was also Mrs. Reynolds’ lawyer and more than likely set up the Honey Trap using her which led to Hamilton’s political downfall. Jefferson had a hand in exposure of the Reynolds Affair through the odious Callender.
Burr was without morality so incest is quite possible. Hamilton accused him of being a “Cataline” which is about as bad as it gets.
Only Marshall’s standing in the path of legalized murder stopped a disgrace on the presidency.
I'd argue that it had just as much to do with Martin's defense of him in showing that an alleged intention to act did not constitute the act itself and, to a lesser extent, the Quids backing off the habeas corpus suspension bill that would have greatly benefited the powers of the prosecution. Though Marshall did capably upheld that same doctrine in Bollman and Swartwout's case.
Hamilton’s overriding concern was benefiting the Union not this or that interest group. He was concerned about a balanced economy and bringing the nation into the future.
Taylor? Give me a break.
Technological breakthroughs spread slowly from England in the 1800s. English iron and steel had benefited the prior century through tariffs and outright prohibition in the colonies. Everything possible was done to retard and prevent iron production in the colonies. Hence, the desire to catch up after independence.
While it is possible that the tariff retarded us it is virtually unprovable by nature. In addition, we would need to compare relative tariff rates along with other import restriction which all countries had before we could conclude anything about this question. Be that as it may, there is also no doubt that production of iron skyrocketed through the period we are discussing and that was the intent.
Burr was also Mrs. Reynolds’ lawyer and more than likely set up the Honey Trap using her which led to Hamilton’s political downfall. Jefferson had a hand in exposure of the Reynolds Affair through the odious Callender.
Right...And Little Alex was just an innocent "victim" of it all, and only spent three years of his life sleeping with her because he had been tricked. Just like Monica tricked Bill, I suppose.
Burr was without morality so incest is quite possible.You're letting your personal biases get ahead of your ability to accurately analyze a historical event. It's a scurrilous accusation with no proof behind it, and simply saying "Burr was bad" is insufficient to demonstrate otherwise.
Hamilton’s overriding concern was benefiting the Union not this or that interest group
Then why did he pander to them anyway at the expense of trade-dependent exporters?
He was concerned about a balanced economy and bringing the nation into the future.
So was Stalin. And so is Obama. Simply being "concerned" about the future of the economy is not a license to use government in an attempt to manipulate and direct it.
Taylor? Give me a break.
Why? Free trade conclusively won out in the economics debate over a century ago. Nobody but the economically illiterate (and the LaRouchies, though that is redundant) takes Hamilton's trade theories seriously today. Taylor, on the other hand, has been generally validated both in free trade and in his early recognition of the economic rent principle that motivates protectionism.
While it is possible that the tariff retarded us it is virtually unprovable by nature
Go tell that to the econ discipline. There are highly sophisticated and scientifically validated trade models for practically every major industry that calculate the welfare effects of tariffs with remarkable precision.
In addition, we would need to compare relative tariff rates along with other import restriction which all countries had before we could conclude anything about this question.
You're committing a common protectionist fallacy that suggests our wealth is dependent upon how other countries treat our exports relative to what we import from them. That's not the case because trade is, by definition, a mutual exchange and therefore benefits both. Tariffs only get in the way and extract value from that exchange by diverting it elsewhere. The direct logical extension of your argument holds that we should adopt a conscious policy of filling up ships with exports and sinking them in the middle of the Atlantic since it would register as a "positive" balance of trade and would not be affected by discriminatory policies against it from other countries.
Marshall did not properly express himself in B and S case and that led to trouble later.
However, had he knuckled under to Jefferson’s mob Burr would have hanged. He was prosecuted on ZERO evidence if one discounts the perjury of Jefferson’s cronies.
Burr’s amorality was repeatedly demonstrated and he would not have claimed any particular morality. He is the only man of that era whom I would not be surprised to have committed incest.
I said nothing about Hamilton’s “innocence” and his susceptibility to this Badger game is no credit. He never really understood his opponents venality and willingness to use any means to destroy him. Jefferson learned from the experience so that when he was exposed wrt Sally Hemmings he wisely kept his mouth shut rather than do a complete hangout like Hamilton had done.
This article by Devore made me lose any respect I ever had for him. As far as I’m concerned he can go perfom an impossible sex act on himself.
I agree with my Congressman, Ron Paul!
The platform of Federalism created by the Fuhrer Lincoln supports the pillars of socialism being erected as we speak. We’re dealing with fascists here, their color went from blue to brown. It’s a shame that they are not confined to obscured threads on FR.
One thread war at a time.
Would you say the same type of 'contract' existed between the colonies and GB in 1776?
Back in the real world though, to credit Hamilton's policies for 19th century industrialization is the height of post hoc ergo propter hoc absurdity...with the added catch that congress couldn't even decide during that period just how Hamiltonian they wanted to make things!
Prior to Hamilton there was no free trade
Nonsense! Before the Constitution was even ratified, we had already signed commercial treaties to mutually reduce tariff barriers with France and Prussia, and were in the midst of negotiating another with Spain.
But Smith would not deny that the system he criticized was more than an economic system. It was a political economic system and took measures to development national power politically as well as economically.
You're spouting meaningless tautologies. An entire half of the Wealth of Nations consists of PROSCRIPTIVE POLITICAL ECONOMY, and specifically that of the free trade kind. Smith wrote his book primarily as a retort to the mercantilist school that supported the existing protectionist policies and did so to explain why those policies were wrongheaded, uneconomical, and actually more wasteful than they are good. And history has completely vindicated him on that point.
As I mentioned previously, Hamilton certainly had his historical followers. They were quite strong for most of the 19th century. But today they're just a footnote of wrongheaded and muddled economic thought. There are no serious "Hamilitonian" economists anymore, and for a reason - his economics simply got it wrong. Wrong in theory. And wrong in practice. As a result, the only people who spout them anymore are the economically illiterate who find the arguments appealing despite not understanding the economics behind them, or the LaRouchite crazies.
-------------------------------------------------
Well, the States entered the agreement under false pretext, and it's void, if that's the case. There wasn't any sort of "argument", it was sold to the Several States. Mr. Madison was the architect, and if his words are nothing, then the Constitution is nothing.
***In surrendering state sovereignty to the Constitution***
They did not " surrender " their Sovereignty ! This is just plain silly. How on Gods Green Earth does the " agent ", the General Government become Sovereign ?
Again, Mr. Know-nothing Madison s/
Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules have been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act.
So Rhode Island ratified. No states did not ratify. You’re left without a point.
yawn...... If you're not willing to actually pay attention to Article VI and what it means, then there's no point going further. You're simply not worth the trouble.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.