Man Born in 1846 Talks About the 1860s and Fighting in the Civil War

https://www.youtube.com ^ | Jul 10, 2022 | Julius Franklin Howell

[Beowulf9]

Pictures were colorized and enhanced using AI optimization software. For the audio, I remastered it using noise gate, compression, loudness normalization, EQ and a Limiter.

Julius Franklin Howell (January 17, 1846 - June 19, 1948) joined the Confederate Army when he was 16. After surviving a few battles, he eventually found himself in a Union prison camp at Point Lookout, Maryland.

In 1947, at the age of 101, Howell made this recording at the Library of Congress.

Our new music channel - Life in the Music: Classic Collections 2-hour videos of music from the 1600s-1900s https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC24p...

Audio has been restored for clarity.

This video is made for educational purposes for fair use under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976.

[x]

>>“But now do people who believe the federal government was narrowly restricted to the things explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.”

>I have no idea what you are saying in that sentence, as it is grammatical gibberish.

What I wrote is simple enough for anyone with a junior high education to understand. If there was some Federalist tradition that survives to today, what about the Anti-Federalist tradition, opposed to industry, banking and effective national defense, and convinced that the federal government could do nothing that wasn't explicitly delegated to it by the Constitution? Are those people still around? Is that view a worthy and viable one today?

[BroJoeK]

ought-six: "But Calhoun in less than twenty years had made a complete one-eighty and became a staunch anti-federalist; whereas, New England flipped the other way, from anti-federalist to federalist.
And, in 1820 with the Missouri Compromise the division of the country into sectionalism was codified at 36 degrees 30 minutes north, with federalists primarily north of that line and anti-federalists south of it.
Again, as I have specified numerous times in the past, I am talking about political PHILOSOPHIES, not political PARTIES."

Again, as I have specified numerous times in the past, you, ought-six, are talking BULL-CR*P, not "philosophies" or "political parties".
And here's how we know that for certain:
In 1861 every single Confederate, without exception, was a federalist who wanted their federal capital to be in Montgomery or Richmond!
The Confederate constitution was a federal constitution!
Even those Confederate state governors who sometimes refused to follow orders from Confederate president Jefferson Davis -- even they were still philosophically federalists.
Not one of those 1860s Confederate governors advocated abolishing the Confederate presidency or returning the Confederacy to the old US Articles of Confederation.

Do you see what I'm saying?
Your idea alleged "philosophical federalists" is just BULL-CR*P.
And just as there were no anti-Federalists in the Confederacy, so there were no anti-Federalists in America after full ratification, say, around 1791.
Every previous anti-Federalist made their peace with the new Federal government and went on to join it, most as Jeffersonian anti-Administration or Democratic-republicans.
Certainly they did oppose the Federalist political party, but not the Federal constitution, government or federalist philosophy it embodies.
Even 1788 anti-Federalist Patrick Henry later supported his Federalist friends, George Washington, John Adams and John Marshall.

So, philosophically speaking, after opposing ratification of the Constitution in 1788, anti-Federalism disappeared from America and has never been seen since.
Yes, of course, some people always wanted more powerful Federal government and others wanted less, but nobody, meaning NOBODY has ever adopted the anti-Federalist philosophical ideals of 1788.

quoting BJK: "Also, you seem to forget that the alternative to ratifying the new Constitution was the old Articles of Confederation."

ought-six: "I didn’t forget that at all.
In fact, I specifically addressed that in an earlier post (i.e., that for a brief period of time there were TWO new nations: One under the Articles, and one under the Constitution)."

No, not really.
After the ninth state, New Hampshire, ratified in June 1788, nothing happened, life went on as before.
Then in June & July Virginia (10) & New York (11) also ratified, and STILL NOTHING HAPPENED.
Finally, in September 1788 the Congress of the Confederacy met and certified the new Constitution, setting dates for new elections and for the new Congress to first meet, March 1789.
The day before the First Congress of the new Federal government met on March 4, 1789, one member of the old Congress of the Confederacy plus a secretary, met just long enough to adjourn the body, sine die.
George Washington became the first President on April 30, 1789.

Point is: there was never more than one national government actually governing at the same time.

ought-six: "Remember, under the Articles of Confederation the state governments were given powers above the national government, not “expressly delegated to the United States.”
The Articles created a decentralized and limited national government, with the states retaining superior power."

If you study the Federalist Papers of Hamilton and Madison, you'll learn, that didn't change under the new Federal constitution, except in those matters expressly delegated to Federal government.
That was the basic idea of all Federalists, from then to today: limited Federal government, limited to those powers expressly delegated to it.

Philosophically anti-Federalists in 1788 wanted to keep the old Articles of Confederation government, which essentially had no more power over the states than, for example, the United Nations does today over member countries.
But, to say it yet again -- after full ratification, around 1791, philosophical anti-Federalism disappeared from America and has not been seen since.
The entire debate since then has been between those who want more versus less powerful Federal government.

Clear?

ought-six: "The Bill of Rights was made part of the Constitution in December, 1791."

Right, and all of your previous discussion on ratification seems fine to me, near as I can tell, you have it exactly right.

My only point here is that, we can well say: with adoption of the Bill of Rights, the last philosophical anti-Federalist disappeared from American politics, with virtually all citizens having become philosophical, if not political, federalists.

Agreed?

[ought-six]

“Again, as I have specified numerous times in the past, you, ought-six, are talking BULL-CR*P, not ‘philosophies’ or ‘political parties’. In 1861 every single Confederate, without exception, was a federalist who wanted their federal capital to be in Montgomery or Richmond! The Confederate constitution was a federal constitution!”

If it’s bull crap, it is bull crap believed by some very prominent Americans throughout history.

And there is a big difference between federalism and how different people see it. Was the US Constitution based on federalism? Yes. Was the CSA Constitution based on federalism? Yes. Because federalism is, at its roots, shared government. That means power is shared between national and local/regional/provincial/state government, as the case may be (in the US, it was between the national government and the states).

The issue was how this federalism was viewed by the people and their representatives.

In America, those who favored a federalism based on a dominant, centralized national government (i.e., Hamiltonian federalism) differed from those who favored a federalism based on a more equitable share of power (Jeffersonian federalism). The former were known as federalists and the latter were known as anti-federalists, because those were the labels that were attached. Hence, the federalist philosophy on the one side, and the anti-federalist (i.e., those who disagreed with the federalists’ philosophy of federalism) on the other. They both agreed on FEDERALISM, but not on how it was to be structured in the United States.

I’m glad you mentioned the CSA Constitution, because that confirmed the anti-federalists’ view of government. If you have ever read the CSA Constitution, it is for the most part very similar to the US Constitution, even down to specific wording. But what the CSA Constitution made clear – and what the anti-federalists thought the US Constitution had intended, and had made clear – was the power of the states. And the CSA Constitution emphasized that at the very outset, in the Preamble.

---

Preamble:

We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.

---

Let me emphasize that wording: EACH STATE ACTING IN ITS SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT CHARACTER…

The people of the CSA wanted to make damn sure there was no question about the powers and rights of the states, and those of the CSA national government.

“Even those Confederate state governors who sometimes refused to follow orders from Confederate president Jefferson Davis — even they were still philosophically federalists.”

Which is exactly why, in an earlier post, I mentioned communism; to show there is a difference between the philosophy of the thing (communism or federalism, as the case may be) and the different interpretations of that philosophy by those who claim to be the thing’s adherents. I am not equating communism and federalism; I just used communism for purposes of illustration.

And Confederate state governors who sometimes refused to follow Davis showed that clearly! They showed the national government of the CSA was NOT superior to the states, and the states had the right and power to disagree, and to exercise their rights, and to act in their own self-interest.

“Not one of those 1860s Confederate governors advocated abolishing the Confederate presidency or returning the Confederacy to the old US Articles of Confederation.”

Why would they? They found the CSA Constitution a better charter.

“Point is: there was never more than one national government actually governing at the same time.”

The US Constitution went into effect on March 4, 1789. However, there were two states of the original thirteen (North Carolina and Rhode Island) that had not ratified it. Thus, those two states were still legally part of the US under the Articles of Confederation. Remember, under the Articles of Confederation all thirteen states would have to consent to any attempts to change the Articles. There was no such unanimous consent to dissolve the confederation and adopt the new Constitution. Hell, Rhode Island LIKED the way things were under the Articles, and fought any changes to it. As for North Carolina, it supported the idea of a constitution, but would not ratify it until there was a Bill of Rights. So, historians have argued for many years over the legality of doing away with the Articles and adopting the Constitution if the law under the Articles (unanimity) was not achieved. Some argued that the abolition of the Articles without unanimous consent of the states was illegal; others argued that the Articles allowed for bills to be passed if nine of the states voted in support. As is usually the case, the ends justified the means, and it was concluded that abolishing the Articles without unanimous consent was okay. Which left two states either still governed under the Articles or, the only other alternative, becoming independent or rogue states (ironically, Rhode Island was derisively called “Rogue Island”).

“If you study the Federalist Papers of Hamilton and Madison, you’ll learn, that didn’t change under the new Federal constitution, except in those matters expressly delegated to Federal government. That was the basic idea of all Federalists, from then to today: limited Federal government, limited to those powers expressly delegated to it.”

Oh, I’ve read the Federalist papers, the first time probably long before you were even born. I’ve also read biographies on him as well as some of his letters.

In any event, Hamilton did indeed call for a strong, centralized federal government, more powerful than the states, and he also argued that the federal government was NOT limited to just those powers specifically delegated to it under the Constitution.

[BroJoeK]

Bull Snipe on Confederates at Fort Sumter: "Only if they fired first."

DiogenesLamp: "The orders did not say that.
They said 'if resisted.
What constitutes resistance?
Could all those chains across the harbor approach and all the ship traps constitute "resistance"?
What constitutes "resistance" is subject to interpretation, but i'm pretty sure that the confederates would have fired at them had they tried to land anything on Sumter."

Right, first, Confederates would potentially have resisted by firing at Fox's Union resupply boats.

Second, "...those chains across the harbor approach and all the ship traps..." were not an issue for Union navy ships anchored outside Charleston Harbor.
Nor would they be a problem for the small boats rowing supplies from, say, SS Baltic to Fort Sumter at night.
There are no reports which say Gustafus Fox's resupply boats couldn't reach Fort Sumter because of "chains" or "traps".
So that's a non-issue.

As to whether Fox's resupply boats could have reached Fort Sumter, given darkness plus the right weather and sea conditions?
Well, nobody has ever suggested Confederate gunners could reliably hit such small & moving targets.
But should Confederate gunners attempt such a feat, then Union warships could still "address" those gunners in language they were certain to understand.

DiogenesLamp: ""The point is, those orders boil down to an order to initiate an armed conflict with the confederates.""

Nooooo, the plan was to resupply Fort Sumter peacefully, if possible, but if not, then with as much force as necessary.

[BroJoeK]

ought-six: "Federalists subscribed to a strong national government, and believed that the Constitution was flexible and malleable, and subject to wide and creative interpretation; and that there were unmentioned rights and powers belonging to the government, and that the government thus had the right to adopt additional powers as it saw fit.
Federalists believed that the states were subordinate to the national government."

But all that is pure Jeffersonian Democratic propaganda.
The real truth is that 1) Federalists did not believe in unlimited Federal power, and 2) Jeffersonian Democrats were not "strict constructionists".
We know that for certain because after Jeffersonian Democrats took power in Washington, DC, in 1801, they eventually supported everything they had previously opposed, including 1) infrastructure spending, 2) the national bank and 3) protective tariffs.

ought-six: "Anti-federalists believed that the national government had only those rights and powers that were specifically delegated to it under the constitution.
Anti-federalists believed that the states were NOT subordinate to the national government, but equal to it, with each having their own respective rights and powers. "

Nooo, that's pure Jeffersonian Democratic propaganda.
The real truth is that anti-Federalists opposed the Constitution, period, and voted against ratification.
Once the Constitution was fully ratified, circa 1791, true anti-Federalists disappeared from American politics forever.
So, every future debate on constitutional issues was never Federalists vs. anti-Federalists, but rather among different factions among the Federalists.
Some factions among the Federalists wanted a more powerful Federal government, others wanted less authority, but none opposed the philosophical idea of Federalism.

Jeffersonian Democratic-republicans are 100% typical in opposing Presidents Washington and Adams on "strict construction" constitutional grounds, but then once in power they too supported what they had previously opposed.
And once Jeffersonians started supporting, for example, infrastructure spending, then the old Federalist party began opposing them on those same "strict construction" grounds!

ought-six: "Thus, there exists under the Constitution what is recognized as dual sovereignty: BOTH the national government AND the states are sovereign, each in its own right, and each subject to the limits placed on each by the Constitution."

Still more propaganda.
The truth is that neither 1800 Federalists nor 1800 Jeffersonian Democratics supported unlimited Federal power nor unlimited "states' rights".
Both agreed the US Constitution limits the powers of all governments and that Federal government was only superior in powers enumerated there.
As minorities, both Federalists and Jeffersonians weaponized strict construction against the party in power, while trying to expand Federal powers whenever they themselves were in charge.

ought-six: "Anti-federalists held that the only superiority the national government has is identified in Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution (the “Supremacy Clause”)... "

Noooo, after around 1791 there were no anti-Federalists and all Federalists believed as you explain here.
The differences of opinion had nothing to do with "Federalists vs. anti-Federalists" much less with North vs. South, but rather with whichever party was then in power, and which was out of power.
Out of power opposition parties invariably appealed to "strict construction" that they soon enough forgot about once they themselves were elected to the majority.

ought-six: "And you have the chutzpah to call that a “concoction of Jeffersonian propaganda extended into future centuries.”
Do you have any idea how totalitarian you sound?"

Nooo, the truth is never "totalitarian", it is simply true.
Do you have any idea how much false and malicious bull cr*p you're posting here?

ought-six: "I already responded to this in a previous post.
Jefferson created no new federal powers with the Louisiana Purchase, as the purchase was made via a Land Treaty that was ratified by the Senate."

Nooo, Jefferson himself acknowledged the Louisiana Purchase was not constitutional and needed an amendment to authorize such purchases.
And Jefferson's erstwhile allies, John Randolph's Tertium Quids", the Old Republicans, opposed the purchase on precisely strict construction grounds.
The Old Republicans lost in the House by two votes, 59 to 57.

ought-six: "As for the Barbary Wars... How is any of that “…adding new Federal powers not contemplated by our Founders?”"

In both Barbary Wars under Democratic Jefferson and Madison, the US waged war against a foreign power without a Congressional Declaration of War.

So, I'm not saying those wars were wrong and shouldn't have been fought.
I am saying that on strict construction grounds there should have first been a Congressional Declaration of War.
I am saying that Jeffersonian Democrats, like every Democrat since only ever weaponized "strict construction" against their political opponents, but utterly ignored it when they themselves held political power.

This is Jefferson & Gallatin's 1808 plan for Federal infrastructure spending:

[ought-six]

“But all that is pure Jeffersonian Democratic propaganda. The real truth is that 1) Federalists did not believe in unlimited Federal power, and 2) Jeffersonian Democrats were not “strict constructionists”.

You lost the argument when you changed the dynamics of it: I never said federalists (the philosophy) or Federalists (the party) believed in UNLIMITED FEDERAL POWER. Moreover, Jefferson was NOT a Democrat (the party); he was a Democratic-Republican (the party). The Democrat Party was founded by Martin Van Buren and Andrew Jackson a few years after Jefferson died. The Jeffersonians most certainly believed in a “strict construction” of the Constitution.

“We know that for certain because after Jeffersonian Democrats took power in Washington, DC, in 1801, they eventually supported everything they had previously opposed, including 1) infrastructure spending, 2) the national bank and 3) protective tariffs.”

Again, there was no such thing as the Jeffersonian DEMOCRATS. You made that up, because you have no valid argument. And, Jefferson never opposed infrastructure spending, which is another claim you made up out of whole cloth. And he was opposed to a national bank.

Since you are so infatuated with cut-and-paste, I will cut-and-paste this for you, from “Reference.com”:

“Jefferson did not like banks, especially large ones; he is famous for having said that the banking industry as a whole was ‘an infinity of successive felonious larcenies. He was especially opposed to a government-supported national bank because he believed in an enlightened agrarian community, not in the business-dominated society that his opponents in the northern states favored. He believed that a national bank would increase the power of business relative to that of agriculture, dooming his ideal society. Furthermore, he pointed out that the United States Constitution did not give Congress the power to create a national bank. His opponents, who construed the Constitution more loosely than did Jefferson, argued that the document did not ban Congress from creating a bank, and that therefore such an action was actually constitutional. Jefferson lost the argument, and the First Bank of the United States was chartered in 1791. However, his ideas and arguments inspired President Andrew Jackson’s successful opposition to a new national bank 40 years later.”

As for tariffs? Jefferson didn’t like them and didn’t do much to support them; but he recognized the necessity of them, as the national debt had to be paid, and he very much opposed a direct tax of the people in general. His party (the Democratic-Republicans) were not a big fan of tariffs, either.

“The real truth is that anti-Federalists opposed the Constitution, period, and voted against ratification.”

That’s a lie, and you know it. But, that’s all you have left. Because – as you know – they wanted some guarantee against potential government tyranny, and thus insisted on a Bill of Rights, similar to the words contained in the constitutions of some of the states. So, they didn’t vote AGAINST the Constitution; they actually voted to ratify it, with conditions. For example, below is a link to Virginia’s vote to ratify, from September 17, 1787.

https://www.usconstitution.net/rat_va.html

Virginia’s Ratification - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

I think we’re done here. You lost the argument so you changed the dynamics. That, son, is known as a straw man. It is the usual default for losers. You have become tiresome. Your case is dismissed, with prejudice.

I will conclude our discussion here.

Don’t respond, as you will only swamp my in-box.

[BroJoeK]

ought-six: "Sorry, but his writings and history disagree with you.
Jefferson was very suspicious of the type of government the federalists sought.
He supported the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as written.
He was firm in his position that the Constitution limited the national government to delegated identified power and authority; no other power and authority existed.
Federalists took the position that the Constitution did NOT limit the government to just those powers delegated to it by the states and enumerated in the Constitution.
Jefferson very much opposed anything even remotely close to a “living constitution,” as he knew such an open-end interpretation of the Constitution would lead to abuse by the government."

Sorry, but all of that is total lies, Democrat Bull-cr*p propaganda.
Here's the real truth:

1. No Federalist, not one, believed in unlimited Federal power.
   All believed as Hamilton and Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers that Federal powers were limited to those expressed in the Constitution.

2. No Jeffersonian Democratic-republican believed in unlimited "states' rights" to nullify or overturn Federal authority.
   All believed as Madison and Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers that the Constitution was the supreme law and Federal government the supreme body in matters delegated by the Constitution.

3. Both Jeffersonian Democratic-republicans and Federalists adopted "strict construction" political stances when they were opposition minorities, and both sometimes ignored Constitutional limits when they were in power.

4. The five great issues of that time (1790 to 1820) were 1) infrastructure spending 2) National Bank 3) import tariffs 4) Louisiana Purchase and 5) undeclared wars.
   In every case, minority Jeffersonian Democratic-republicans opposed the majority Federalist Party during the 1790s, on "strict construction" Constitutional grounds, but then adopted those same policies once Jeffersonians came to power after 1800.
   At the same time, after 1800 the now minority Federalists flipped to oppose the Jeffersonian majority on those same "strict construction" Constitutional grounds.

Years later, as Jeffersonians evolved into Jacksonian Democrats and Federalists became Whigs, their political positions became more fixed, however, even in the 1830s, Democrat President Jackson, while opposed to the National Bank, still supported high protective tariffs, indeed the highest ever rates under the "Tariff of Abominations."
Further, while Democrat President Jackson considered states' rights a given, he had zero tolerance for threats of nullification or secession -- i.e., South Carolina's nullification crisis.

So, it was never a matter of one party favoring "states' rights" while the other wanted unlimited Federal power.
Rather, it was always a matter of the party in office wanting to expand its scope while the other party wanted to limit government on "strict construction" constitutional grounds.

Finally, on this whole idea of a "living Constitution" that did not come from Federalists, Whigs or Republicans, it came from Democrats like Woodrow Wilson:

["Living Constitution] -- "The phrase originally derives from the title of a 1927 book of that name by Professor Howard Lee McBain,[12] and early efforts at developing the concept in its modern form have been credited to figures like Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Louis D. Brandeis, and Woodrow Wilson.[13][14]
The earliest mentions of the Constitution as "living," particularly in the context of a new way of interpreting it, comes from Woodrow Wilson's book Constitutional Government in the United States[15] in which he wrote:
'Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice'. [16]"

That's the truth of the matter.

[BroJoeK]

x: "They [large plantation owners] wanted a secure financial system, a growing economy, and opportunities to invest their money, so the Whigs got votes in the big slave counties.
That would change when the Whigs broke up and were eventually replaced by the Republicans and slavery moved to the forefront as an issue."

Right, and as late as the 1852 Presidential election of Democrat New Hampshire Senator Franklin Pierce vs. Whig Virginia General Winfield Scott, you can still not see a North-South split among the electorates:

[BroJoeK]

ought-six: "You keep doing this, identifying the Federalist PARTY (hence, the capitalization of the word).
I never said Calhoun was a member of the Federalist PARTY.
I said he was a nationalist, a federalist.
Both lowercase words, meaning subscribing to the PHILOSOPHIES of nationalism and federalism.
How come you didn’t say Calhoun was a Nationalist (note the capitalization)? "

I think perhaps your problem here is in defining the word "federalism" -- you seem very confused & disoriented about it, so here is one commonly accepted definition:

"Federalism is a mixed or compound mode of government that combines a general government (the central or "federal" government) with regional governments (provincial, state, cantonal, territorial, or other sub-unit governments) in a single political system, dividing the powers between the two.
Federalism in the modern era was first adopted in the unions of states during the Old Swiss Confederacy.[1]

"Federalism differs from confederalism, in which the general level of government is subordinate to the regional level, and from devolution within a unitary state, in which the regional level of government is subordinate to the general level.[2]
It represents the central form in the pathway of regional integration or separation, bounded on the less integrated side by confederalism and on the more integrated side by devolution within a unitary state.[3][4]"

"Examples of a federation or federal province or state include Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Brazil, Canada, Germany, India, Iraq, Malaysia, Mexico, Micronesia, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russia, Switzerland, UAE, and United States.
Some characterize the European Union as the pioneering example of federalism in a multi-state setting, in a concept termed the "federal union of states".[5]

This is why I say, after around 1791 (Bill of Rights ratified), there were no American anti-Federalists.
By 1791 virtually every American had accepted the idea, the philosophy, of federalism as embodied in our Constitutional Federal Republic.
Most of the old anti-Federalists then joined Thomas Jefferson's anti-Administration faction, later to become known as Democratic-republicans, or "Democratics" for short.
1790s era Jeffersonians had completely accepted the Federal Constitution, and used it -- weaponized it -- to oppose the Federalist Party proposals of Presidents George Washington and John Adams.
But once Jefferson's "Democratics" came to power in 1801 they eventually supported almost every expansion of Federal powers they had previously opposed, and added some new expansions of their own.

So, after around 1791 every American was both Federalist and Nationalist, but not all agreed on exactly what those terms included.
Some were stricter in their interpretations of Constitutional limits than were others, and these positions could change, even reverse, over time.

ought-six: "How come you didn’t say Calhoun was a Nationalist (note the capitalization)?
Or are you selective in your identifications?
I mean, communism is a philosophy; and those who subscribe to that philosophy are communists, REGARDLESS the NAME of their respective political parties, or how they applied the philosophy to fit their own goals.
There are Marxist communists; Stalinist communists; Workers’ Party communists; People’s Revolutionary Party communists; Socialist Revolutionary Party communists; you get the picture."

Right, and I agree with all that.
I'm saying that after around 1791 there were no American anti-Federalists or anti-Nationalists.
All agreed that Federalism and Nationalism were defined by US Constitutional limits on Federal powers.
I'm saying from ~1790 on, the minority party attempted to weaponize the Constitution against proposals of the ruling party, proposals they then supported, once the roles were reversed.

ought-six: "Federalists (those who embraced the philosophy, not necessarily the political party, as the latter died as a political party early in the 1800s) subscribed to a strong national government, and believed that the Constitution was flexible and malleable, and subject to wide and creative interpretation; and that there were unmentioned rights and powers belonging to the government, and that the government thus had the right to adopt additional powers as it saw fit.
The federalist philosophy appealed to businesses and professionals who favored banks, national over state government, manufacturing, an army and navy, and in world affairs preferred Great Britain and strongly opposed the French Revolution.
They favored centralization, federalism, modernization, industrialization and protectionism."

Like I said, by circa 1791 every American was a federalist, federalism as defined by the US Constitution.
Some Americans (the majority in political power) interpreted the Constitution more broadly, while others (the minority opposition) invariably interpreted the Constitution more strictly and opposed the majority's plans on "strict construction" constitutional grounds.

The major issues of that time, on which these interpretations played out were:

1. What we call "infrastructure spending"
2. A National Bank
3. Protective tariffs
4. The Louisiana Purchase
5. Undeclared wars (i.e., Quazi War, Barbary Wars)

The minority opposition party, be they Democratics or Federalists, opposed these on "strict construction" grounds, while the majority ruling party supported them on grounds of reason and necessity.

ought-six: "Yet, — again, inadvertently — you proved my point.
You said that Calhoun was a “... strong nationalist… and favored protective tariffs.”
Those were key federalist philosophies.
And you admit that later he switched and became a strong advocate against a dominant central government and for states’ rights and low tariffs (an anti-federalist philosophy)."

Sure, but so far as I know, Calhoun was always a philosophical federalist, meaning he always supported our federal constitution and did not support rescinding the Constitution.
Calhoun's threats of nullification or secession were never in opposition to our federal constitution, but rather from his belief that it had been violated.
So, Calhoun's differences with his fellow Southern slaveholders, Henry Clay and Andrew Jackson, were matters of policy under the federal Constitution, not necessarily of rescinding, nullifying or seceding from it.

And the proof-positive that Calhoun was indeed a philosophical constitutional federalist comes from the fact that when Deep South Fire Eaters in 1860 began to declare their secessions and Confederacy, they adopted for their new government, basically, the old federal Constitution.

So, after around 1791 there were no American anti-Federalists.

ought-six: "The Democratic-Republican Party was the main rival of the Federalist Party, the latter of which suffered an ignominious death in 1816, but was too stupid to know it.
Some of its survivors resurfaced in the 1820s and, along with a strange amalgam of anti-Jackson Democrats, moralists, abolitionists, pacifists, bigots, and assorted misfits created the Whig Party, primarily as an opposition to Andrew Jackson and the Jacksonian Democrats.
Interestingly enough, it became a political force for 20 years before it, too, died. "

Your words, "too stupid to know it" are the language of Democrat propagandists and have no validity in actual history.
In fact, there were Federalists in Congress as late as 1825 and in some state offices until around 1830.
The actual demise of Federalist Party, arguably, came in 1814 at the Hartford Convention, where they discussed the idea of secession.
That was their ruination -- unlike Democrats who actually declared secession and war against the United States in 1861 -- Federalists did not long survive their flirting with secession.

But as Jefferson and Jacksonian "Democratics" came to dominate US politics, they redefined the word "Federalist" to mean, basically, "everything evil", something like "racist" is used today, or "communist", or increasingly, "extreme MAGA".
Such redefinitions are simply political propaganda, they mean almost nothing in reality.

ought-six: "Some of its survivors resurfaced in the 1820s and, along with a strange amalgam of anti-Jackson Democrats, moralists, abolitionists, pacifists, bigots, and assorted misfits created the Whig Party, primarily as an opposition to Andrew Jackson and the Jacksonian Democrats.
Interestingly enough, it became a political force for 20 years before it, too, died. "

The Whigs were a national party, successors of the old Federalists and National Republicans, and from 1833 to 1856 they elected two Presidents, Harrison and Taylor.
Whigs controlled both houses of the 27th Congress and one house each in the 28th and 30th Congress.
They were born (1833) in opposition to Jacksonian Democratics and died (1856) in the split over slavery.
Most Northern Whigs went on to become Republicans while some Southern Whigs supported the American ("Know Nothings") Party and John Bell's Constitutional Union Party.

ought-six: "No matter what the name of the party, from 1789 up through the Civil War federalist philosophy was their guiding principle: Strong central government; high tariffs; a liberal construction and the widest interpretation of the Constitution; a national bank; etc."

Your term "strong central government" is ridiculous propaganda talk when in fact, there was no serious difference.
Here are some examples:

1. Under 16 years of Jeffersonian Democratic Presidents Madison and Monroe, Federal spending averaged 2.7% of US GDP.
   Compare that to today's, what is it now, 40%??
   You can easily see that our Founders' original intentions were a vastly smaller government.

2. Under 16 years of Jacksonian Democrat Presidents Van Buren, Polk, Pierce and Buchanan, Federal spending averaged 2.0% of US GDP.
   So, it seems that Jacksonian Democrats were slightly more frugal than Jeffersonian Democratic-republicans, right?

3. But under 8 years of Whig Presidents Harrison, Tyler, Taylor & Fillmore, Federal spending averaged just 1.7% of US GDP.
   So all this talk about Whigs favoring "strong central government" is just nonsense, especially when we compare then to now.

ought-six: "high tariffs; "

Yes, Whigs did favor higher protective tariffs, but the historical graph clearly shows that the highest tariffs, the "Tariff of Abominations" came under Democrat President Jackson.
So Whig Presidents Harrison and Tyler (both Southerners) increased tariffs in the early 1840s, but under Whig Presidents Taylor and Fillmore tariff rates (1849-1853) trended downwards.

ought-six: "a liberal construction and the widest interpretation of the Constitution;"

That is pure 100% nonsense, especially when you consider Democrats' "widest interpretation" in their SCOTUS Dred Scot decision.
What Dred Scot proves is that Democrats were even more dedicated to "the widest interpretation" -- indeed, Dred Scot reversed our Founders' intentions.
Nothing Whigs ever proposed came even close.

ought-six: "a national bank"

While Jefferson's Democratic-republicans opposed the National Bank under Alexander Hamilton, once in power themselves, President Madison renewed its charter for another 20 years.

Democrat President Jackson did finally abolish the national bank (1836), and it was not reestablished by either Whigs or Republicans, but was reborn as the Federal Reserve in 1913 under Democrat President Wilson.

Bottom line: from Day One Democrats were always total frauds & hypocrites regarding their alleged philosophy of "strict construction" of the Constitution.
In reality, Democrats have always weaponized "strict construction" against their political opponents, but then ignored such niceties whenever Democrats themselves were in charge in Washington, DC.

That's the truth of the matter.

[BroJoeK]

ought-six: "You lost the argument when you changed the dynamics of it: I never said federalists (the philosophy) or Federalists (the party) believed in UNLIMITED FEDERAL POWER."

Sure you did, here are your exact words:

"Federalists subscribed to a strong national government, and believed that the Constitution was flexible and malleable, and subject to wide and creative interpretation; and that there were unmentioned rights and powers belonging to the government, and that the government thus had the right to adopt additional powers as it saw fit.
Federalists believed that the states were subordinate to the national government."

That sounds like "unlimited power" to me -- after all, if all Federalists needed to do was redefine the Constitution to fit their purposes, there are no real limits, are there?

In reality, none of that is true of the old Federalists and nearly everything Jeffersonian Democratic-republicans claimed to oppose on "strict construction" grounds, they later supported when they themselves were in political power.

That's the truth of it.

ought-six: "Moreover, Jefferson was NOT a Democrat (the party); he was a Democratic-Republican (the party). "

All the same thing.
Just as there is a direct line of descent from 1788 pro-Constitution Federalists, to the Federalist Party, to the Whigs and then Republicans, so also the line of descent goes from anti-Constitution anti-Federalists to the Jeffersonian anti-Administration faction, to Jeffersonian Democratic-republicans to Jacksonian Democrats.
They were the same people who simply changed party names, for whatever reasons.

ought-six: "The Democrat Party was founded by Martin Van Buren and Andrew Jackson a few years after Jefferson died."

Most of those who became Jacksonian Democratics had previously been Jeffersonian Democratic-republicans.
They were the same people with just a small name change.

ought-six: "The Jeffersonians most certainly believed in a “strict construction” of the Constitution."

Of course, they said they were "strict constructionists" when they were the minority opposition party, before 1801.
But once in the political majority, they eventually supported nearly everything they'd previously opposed on "strict construction" grounds.
And we know they were no longer "strict constructionists" because their Tertium Quid allies, lead by Virginian John Randolph, continued to oppose Jeffersonian policies on strict construction grounds.

ought-six: "Again, there was no such thing as the Jeffersonian DEMOCRATS.
You made that up, because you have no valid argument."

During Jefferson's lifetime they were called "Democratics" as short for Democratic-republicans and also, sometimes, "The Democracy".
Today, they still call themselves "Democratics", even though we call them "Democrats"

Today's "Democratics" still claim both Jefferson and Jackson as the founders of their party, the party we call "Democrats".
So, it's entirely legitimate to refer to Jefferson's Democratic-republicans as "Democratics" or "Democrats".

ought-six: "And, Jefferson never opposed infrastructure spending, which is another claim you made up out of whole cloth."

Of course Jefferson did oppose Federalist infrastructure proposals, in particular Alexander Hamilton's 1791 "Report on Manufacturers" which included:

1. Encourage the nation's spirit of enterprise, innovation, and invention.
2. Support internal improvements, including roads and canals to increase and to encourage domestic commerce.
3. Grow the infant nation to a manufacturing power that would be independent of control by foreign powers by relying on their goods for domestic, especially defense supplies.

Jefferson's opposition included:

"Leading opponents of Alexander Hamilton's economic plan included Thomas Jefferson (until later years) and James Madison, who were opposed to the use of subsidy to industry, along with most of their fledgling Democratic-Republican Party.
Instead of bounties they reasoned in favor of high tariffs and restrictions on imports to increase manufacturing, which was favored by the manufacturers themselves, who desired protection of their home market.[citation needed]
Although the Jeffersonian stance originally favored an "agrarian" economy of farmers, it changed over time to encompass many of Hamilton's original ideas:[5]
Also, "the Madison administration helped give rise to the first truly protectionist tariff in U.S. history."[6]"

In other words, Jeffersonians opposed protective tariffs and internal improvements when Alexander Hamilton proposed them, but later came to support them in their own administrations.

ought-six: "And he was opposed to a national bank."

And yet... and yet... when the National Bank charter expired in 1816, President Madison approved its renewal, supposedly "reluctantly".

ought-six quoting on National Bank: "Jefferson lost the argument, and the First Bank of the United States was chartered in 1791.
However, his ideas and arguments inspired President Andrew Jackson’s successful opposition to a new national bank 40 years later."

Jefferson didn't just lose the National Bank argument in 1791, he lost it again in 1816 when the banks charter came up for renewal and was approved by Jefferson's own Vice President, then President James Madison, Father of the Constitution!!

It took an extraordinary character on the level of Andrew Jackson to finally abolish the National Bank in 1836.
And it remained abolished for 77 years, through administrations of Whigs and Republicans until reformulated as the Federal Reserve in 1913 under Democrat President Woodrow Wilson.

ought-six: "As for tariffs? Jefferson didn’t like them and didn’t do much to support them; but he recognized the necessity of them, as the national debt had to be paid, and he very much opposed a direct tax of the people in general.
His party (the Democratic-Republicans) were not a big fan of tariffs, either."

Jeffersons Democratics, like Jackson's Democrats generally favored lower import tariffs, except when they didn't.
Generally, Democratics wanted lower tariffs when Federalists, Whigs or Republicans were in power, but then substantially raised rates themselves when Democratics were in power, most notably:

1. 1789 Congressman James Madison introduced the first protective tariff, with rates averaging 15%.

2. 1816 President Madison increased tariffs from around 10% to over 20%.

3. 1828 With Andrew Jackson's support the "Tariff of Abominations" increased rates to over 35%.

From Jackson's time on tariff rates trended downward under Democratic administrations until they reached about 15% under President Buchanan, in 1858.

ought-six: "That’s a lie, and you know it.
But, that’s all you have left.
Because – as you know – they wanted some guarantee against potential government tyranny, and thus insisted on a Bill of Rights, similar to the words contained in the constitutions of some of the states.
So, they didn’t vote AGAINST the Constitution; they actually voted to ratify it, with conditions.
For example, below is a link to Virginia’s vote to ratify, from September 17, 1787."

You sound as confused as John Kerry a few years back who claimed he meant "no" when he voted "yes" and "yes" when he voted "no".
Here's the truth: every state eventually voted "yes" to ratify the new Constitution, but many in every state, the anti-Federalists, voted "no".
Those anti-Federalists who voted "no" did so despite all the promises of new amendments and laws to protect their interests.
Now, you may not realize it, but back in those days, "yes" meant "yes" and "no" meant "no", regardless of what a John Kerry might later claim.

So, many anti-Federalists voted "no" and had they succeeded the old Articles of Confederation would have remained in effect -- that's what "no" meant, back in those days.
Then, once the ratification was complete and the promised Bill of Rights delivered, the old anti-Federalists accepted the results and mostly joined Thomas Jefferson's new anti-Administration faction, soon to be called "Democratic-republicans" or "Democratics" for short.

ought-six: "I think we’re done here.
You lost the argument so you changed the dynamics.
That, son, is known as a straw man.
It is the usual default for losers.
You have become tiresome.
Your case is dismissed, with prejudice."

Your "dynamics" are nonsense.
The only "straw men" here are the ones you've set up.
You have no real case, only endless Democrat propaganda lies, so there's nothing to dismiss.

That's the truth of this matter.

[BroJoeK]

ought-six: "In America, those who favored a federalism based on a dominant, centralized national government (i.e., Hamiltonian federalism) differed from those who favored a federalism based on a more equitable share of power (Jeffersonian federalism).
The former were known as federalists and the latter were known as anti-federalists, because those were the labels that were attached.
Hence, the federalist philosophy on the one side, and the anti-federalist (i.e., those who disagreed with the federalists’ philosophy of federalism) on the other.
They both agreed on FEDERALISM, but not on how it was to be structured in the United States."

No, after roughly 1791 there were no "anti-Federalists" either self-identifies as such or called such by their opponents.
Instead, most previous anti-Federalists, having lost the vote for ratification of the Constitution, most then joined Thomas Jefferson's Anti-Administration faction, soon to be called "Democratic-republicans" or "Democratics" for short.

So, all political or philosophical debates were then within the boundaries of "federalism" as defined by the US Constitution.
Some wanted stronger Federal government, others wanted weaker Federal and stronger state government authority.
The debates hinged on how, exactly, the Constitution should be interpreted -- "strictly" or "loosely"?

During the 1790s the most famous "strict construction" advocate was Thomas Jefferson, who weaponized the term "strict construction" to defeat proposals by Presidents Washington and Adams, for a National Bank, and also what they called "internal improvements" and we call "infrastructure spending".
Then, when Jefferson's party came to power, after the 1800 election, they eventually supported nearly all of what they'd previously opposed on "strict construction" grounds.

Here is a chart showing the actual "big government" spending of every presidency from Washington to Franklin Roosevelt.
You'll notice that if we measure political rhetoric against the actual spending dollars and percent of GDP, not everything claimed as "big government" spending actually was:

Federal Spending % of GDP BY Era

Years From - To	Nbr of Years	Avg $ spent ($000)	% of GDP	Administrations	Political Party
1792 - 1801	10	$7,132	2.0%	Washington & Adams	Federalist
1802-1809	8	$9,413	1.7%	Thomas Jefferson	Democratic-republican
1810-1825	16	$21,103	2.7%	Madison & Monroe	Democratic-republican
1826-1829	4	$17,826	2.0%	John Quincy Adams	Democratic-republican
1830 - 1837	4	$21,538	2.0%	Andrew Jackson	Democratic
1838 - 1841	4	$35,104	2.0%	Van Buren	Democratic
1846 - 1849	4	$42,508	2.1%	Polk	Democratic
1854 - 1857	4	$68,026	1.9%	Pierce	Democratic
1858 - 1861	4	$82,436	1.9%	Buchanan	Democratic
Averages	16	$56,994	2.0%	Post Jackson Democrats	Democratic
1842 - 1845	4	$25,943	1.5%	Harrison / Taylor	Whig
1850 - 1853	4	$49,938	1.8%	Taylor / Fillmore	Whig
Averages	8	$37,940	1.7%	Both Whig administrations	Whig
1862 - 1877	16	$459,753	5.7%	Lincoln / Johnson / Grant	Republican
1878 - 1885	8	$293,683	2..8%	Hayes / Garfield / Arthur	Republican
1886 - 1897	8	$381,694	2.7%	Grover Cleveland	Democratic
1890 - 1893	4	$401,602	2.7%	Harrison	Republican
1898 - 1901	4	$584,200	3.1%	McKinnley	Republican
1902 - 1909	8	$660,544	2.3%	Teddy Roosevelt	Republican
1910 - 1913	4	$860,773	2.5%	Taft	Republican
Averages	20	$663,532	2.6%	Turn of Century Republicans	Republican
1914 - 1921	8	$5,636,740	8.5%	Woodrow Wilson	Democratic
1922 - 1933	12	$4,121,000	4.9%	Harding / Coolidge / Hoover	Republican
1934 - 1949	16	$32,021,617	19.6%	Franklin Roosevelt	Democratic

One point to notice here is that regardless of political party, Federal spending remained around 2% of GDP until the Civil War.
After the Civil war, Federal spending fell under 3%, the extra percentage used to pay down the National Debt.

Woodrow Wilson's explosion in Federal spending can easily be attached to the First World War, and the following Republican administrations to paying down war debts.

Franklin Roosevelt is the first President to raise Federal spending to around 20% of GDP, a level it has never seriously declined from since.

Compared to today's bloated monstrosity of Federal government, all of our ancestors -- be they Federalists, anti-Federalists, Democrati-republicans, National Republicans, Democratics, Whigs or Republicans -- were all small-government extremists, without a serious "dime's worth of difference" among them.

[ought-six]

You are a damned liar. On so many levels. For instance, you assert that George Washington was a member of the Federalist Party. It’s right there in your graph.

If you had clue one about American history you’d know that George Washington was not only NOT a member of the Federalist Party, he belonged to no political party at all, and was opposed to the idea of political parties and distrusted them.

Don’t ever post to me again, on ANY topic. You just clog up my in-box.

[x]

The party system hadn’t fully developed yet. Washington, and to some extent Adams, wanted to think of themselves as above all parties. Most historians, though, do consider them to have been Federalists. Jefferson left the cabinet at the end of 1793, and by then it was clear that an anti-administration party was developing.

Wikipedia takes a somewhat different view, recognizing that Washington was a Federalist in his thinking and politics but that he strove to be or to be seen as above parties. If you were, as you said, talking about philosophies, not about parties, then you ought to admit that Washington was a Federalist in philosophy.

Later on, many Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans came to accept some version of Federalist policies as necessary to develop the country and strengthen us and ward off foreign influences. The “tertium quid” or third element or third thing Republicans, a distinct minority in the party, wanted to remain rural (and slaveowning). Jefferson didn’t fully accept Federalist policies either. He had trouble with banks, and that colored his thinking. Part of his problem was the expense of keeping up Monticello and the lifestyle he had been accustomed to.

Later on, the cotton boom encouraged the dream of a country forever rural and agrarian. The cotton boom wasn’t going to last. If you’re around now, and still don’t accept industrial, urban society, you’ve missed the boat. For better or for worse, that ship has already sailed.

[BroJoeK]

ought=six: "You are a damned liar.
On so many levels.
For instance, you assert that George Washington was a member of the Federalist Party.
It’s right there in your graph."

George Washington was the greatest federalist -- philosophical, political or however else you might define federalist -- of all.
Washington not only led the Continental Army to victory in the Revolutionary War, he also called and lead the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.
That 1787 Federal Constitution was Washington's Constitution, the 1788 Federalists who supported ratification were all Washington's men, as was the Federalist political party which tried to govern against opposition from Thomas Jefferson's anti-Federalist, anti-Administration Democratic-republicans.

So no, in every sense, George Washington defined the word "Federalist" in American history.
Thomas Jefferson defined the terms "anti-Federalist" or "Democratic".

ought=six: "If you had clue one about American history you’d know that George Washington was not only NOT a member of the Federalist Party, he belonged to no political party at all, and was opposed to the idea of political parties and distrusted them."

Of course Washington defined himself as "non-political", but all of his supporters called themselves "Federalists" and all of his opponents called themselves "anti-Federalists" or "Democratic-republicans".

Let me ask you -- do you, ought-six, have any idea how very much George Washington came to loathe and despise Thomas Jefferson?
If you don't, then you know nothing of real history, all you really know is your Democrat Kool-Aid propaganda.

Count on me to answer any lies you post on this thread, FRiend.

[DiogenesLamp]

I had a thought earlier today.

In what part of the country was the tech industry in 1860?

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "In what part of the country was the tech industry in 1860?"

There are any number of maps available showing the US economy in 1860.
Here's one:

And here's another, similar, but notice that it does show significant textile and other manufacturing in almost every Southern state:

[DiogenesLamp]

Southerners also wanted a strong Federal government so far as slavery was concerned. No states rights there.

You are being disingenuous. All of the states agreed to the Constitutional protections for slavery. States *GAVE UP* their rights to do what they wanted on the issue of slavery.

They *AGREED* to send back runaway slaves when they ratified the US Constitution with that provision in it. They also *AGREED* to recognize the laws of other states through the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution.

I think this makes it a valid legal argument that they cannot simply seize the citizens of other states "property" when such citizens take their slaves into "free" states.

So States Rights? Nope. They gave up all those rights when they signed the dotted line.

[jeffersondem]

One of the maps you posted (entitled Slavery and the Economy) says this in a call-out pointed towards the southern states: “Cotton is highly profitable to the South because of unpaid slave labor.”

And a call-out pointed toward the northern states says: “Manufacturing of textiles and other goods occurs mainly in the North.”

I thought for sure the map editors would include a statement such as: “Manufacturing of textiles were highly profitable to the North because they used cotton grown by unpaid slave labor. And non-cotton widgets manufactured were also highly profitable to the North because of low wages paid to disadvantaged women and children laborers who lived in squalor and worked long hours, many times in unsafe sweatshops.

I guess censorship by blue state culture in nothing new.

[HandyDandy]

I guess that you have finally managed to pinpoint the moral equivalence between “unpaid slave labor” in the South, and the North’s “low wages paid to disadvantaged women and children laborers who lived in squalor and worked long hours, many times in unsafe sweatshops.” Bravo! So well played! Good show, old chap!

To get a better sense of the “non-cotton widgets” manufactured in the North, I might suggest you tour a Southern plantation. Because every manufactured item you see there will have come from the North.

I am sure that you are also aware that there are “textiles” other than cotton. Northern textile manufacturing also produced its share of wool (from England).

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "One of the maps you posted (entitled Slavery and the Economy) says this in a call-out pointed towards the southern states: 'Cotton is highly profitable to the South because of unpaid slave labor.' "

I agree that slaves were far from cost free and, among other costs, had to be supported even when there was no work.
And I doubt if low production costs were the only, or even the major, factor in competition with other producers in Egypt, India and Brazil.
Rather, I suspect it was the willingness and ability of Americans to increase their production rapidly enough to keep up with growing European demand which kept our guys as favored sole-source suppliers.
Also, transportation costs were no small matter and the ability of US shippers to load up on return cargoes for sale to average Americans had to be a major factor in driving our total costs down.

So it wasn't only slavery that mattered, it was our whole economic system that made US cotton the world's leader.
That's some of what DiogenesLamp's "money flows from Europe" were all about.

Only when Civil War ended the steady supply from the USA did our European customers reluctantly turn to other sources.

And, if I remember correctly, once war ended, U.S. cotton again became #1 in the world, though not as dominant as before.

Anyway, it was often argued "back in the day" that slaves were typically treated better than Northern factory workers, and for some that was doubtless true.
The difference being the free Northern workers right to quit his or her job to find a better one elsewhere, as nearly all eventually did.