Posted on 12/10/2025 5:48:11 AM PST by BHI2025
John Adams on why the Constitution was designed to keep poor people from stealing from rich people. Note the starkly religious tones he uses when talking about YOUR MONEY.
“Suppose a nation, rich and poor, high and low, ten millions in number, all assembled together; not more than one or two millions will have lands, houses, or any personal property; if we take into the account the women and children, or even if we leave them out of the question, a great majority of every nation is wholly destitute of property, except a small quantity of clothes, and a few trifles of other moveables. Would Mr. Nedham[ ] be responsible that, if all were to be decided by a vote of the majority, the eight or nine millions who have no property would not think of usurping over the rights of the one or two millions who have? Property is surely a right of mankind as really as liberty. Perhaps, at first, prejudice, habit, shame, or fear, principle or religion, would restrain the poor from attacking the rich, and the idle from usurping on the industrious; but the time would not be long before courage and enterprise would come, and pretexts be invented by degrees, to countenance the majority in dividing all the property among them, or, at least in sharing it equally with its present possessors. Debts would be abolished, first; taxes laid heavy on the rich, and not at all on the others; and at last a downright equal division of everything be demanded, and voted. What would be the consequence of this? The idle, the vicious, the intemperate, would rush into the utmost extravagance of debauchery, sell and spend all their share, and then demand a new division of those who purchased from them. The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If “Thou shalt not covet,” and “Thou shalt not steal,” were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.”
Totally different thing. That paper money was printed all over the place as a wartime essential.
The paper money crisis that gave us the US Cons. was NOTHING but a bunch of poor farmers, endowed by the power of unchecked democracy, asking their reps to print paper money for no reason other than their desire to steal, at the point of a government gun, money from their creditors.
Thanks for gathering that information together and writing it!
Here
You’re welcome!
The Welfare Program That Led Directly To The Creation Of The US Constitution.
Where does it say that in the Constitution.
The 13 states were not as one it was a loose knit deal.
James Madison, chief author of the Cons. said it. Did you read the pieces.
Also, the anti-feds admitted it.
Here is Richard Henry Lee (or possibly Melancton Smith) writing as the Federal Farmer in opposition to the new federal government explaining why the Convention was called.
Our governments have been new and unsettled; and several legislatures, by making tender, suspension, and paper money laws, have given just cause of uneasiness to creditors. By these and other causes, several orders of men in the community have been prepared, by degrees, for a change of government. And this very abuse of power in the legislatures, which in some cases has been charged upon the democratic part of the community, has furnished aristocratical men with those very weapons, and those very means, with which, in great measure, they are rapidly effecting their favourite object….
The conduct of several legislatures, touching paper money, and tender laws, has prepared many honest men for changes in government, WHICH OTHERWISE THEY WOULD NOT HAVE THOUGHT OF.”
James Madison wrote “Vices of the Political System of the United States” just before the Convention for the same reason: to explain why the Convention was being called and to lay out the national political “vices” that made a new government necessary. He wrote of 12 different vices. Paper money, only one of the 12, took up 1,200 of the 3,100 words, more than any other subject. This was nearly three times the number of words dedicated to the next leading subject. Freedom of speech, worship, and the press were not mentioned even once.
Or, as the Colliers said in “Decision in Philadelphia”
What concerned Madison MOST in “Vices” was not only that the states were flouting national regulations, but that they were treating unjustly certain minorities [the creditor class] within their own borders.
…Madison was especially troubled by the stay laws and tender laws and the paper money that so many of the plain people of the country were clamoring for. These laws, Madison believed, were “oppressing” the creditor minority.
The biggest problem with States issuing paper money was that it virtually destroyed the ability of the government to borrow from European creditors in order to finance a navy. The French in particular worried that “The United States” could not pay its bills in real money. Hence was Hamilton’s early and prominent role in the Federal Convention.
Not quite. You are conflating, like an earlier poster, the wartime printing of paper money, and the post war printing. The state of Rhode Island, which absolutely horrified the Framers, didn’t print a single dollar to pay off a war debt.
No. The “biggest problem” with the states printing paper money is that they were using it to steal from a powerless minority (rich people) the sacred, God-given, natural right of those rich people to be secure in their money.
Speaking of Rhode Island, that state refused to attend the Convention, because they knew that the Convention was called to kill their immoral welfare state.
It is no coincidence that the state which abused paper money the worst, was singled out by the Framers the most, refused to participate.
Not quite. I am recalling my reading of Farrand's Record of the Federal Convention as coupled with the expressed need to protect merchant shipping after the War.
The Framers paper money obsession was all about the poor stealing from the rich.
Again, Rhode Island was not singled out by the Framers CONSTANTLY because of war debt.
Rhode Island did not pass laws compelling creditors who lend gold and silver to farmers to accept paper money in return for the debts because of war debt.
Our governments have been new and unsettled.
It took time to run out the mistakes but the got it right at last.
Now the new breed in the feds democrats are working to dismantel it back to the beginning.
That was not an overwhelming theme of the Federal Convention debate.
Yes, it was.
So frightening was the specter of paper money that Convention delegate George Read said that granting the federal government the power to issue it “would be as alarming as the mark of the Beast in Revelation.”
New Hampshire delegate John Langdon said he would “rather reject the whole plan” than see the federal government granted this power.
He was persuaded there was a better chance for proper elections by the people, if divided into large districts, than by the state legislatures. Paper money had been issued by the latter, when the former were against it.
— James Madison, speaking of George Mason at the Convention
He differed from gentlemen who thought that a choice by the people would be a better guard against bad measures than by the legislatures. A majority of the people in South Carolina were notoriously for paper money as a legal tender; the Legislature had refused to make it a legal tender. The reason was, that the latter had some sense of character and were restrained by that consideration.
— James Madison, speaking of Charles Pinckney at the Convention
The great evils complained of were, that the state legislatures ran into schemes of paper-money, etc., whenever solicited by the people, and sometimes without even the sanction of the people. Their influence, then, instead of checking a like propensity in the National Legislature, may be expected to promote it.
— James Madison
Mr. Gerry insisted, that the commercial and moneyed interest would be more secure in the hands of the state legislatures than of the people at large. The former have more sense of character, and will be restrained by that from injustice. The people are for paper money, when the legislatures are against it.
— James Madison, speaking of Elbridge Gerry at the Convention
Speaking of a proposed federal veto power on all state laws that were contrary to the Constitution, Madison notes that during the Convention, Elbridge Gerry was generally against it, but that “He had no objection to authorize a negative to paper money, and similar measures.”
Give all power to the many, they will oppress the few. Give all power to the few, they will oppress the many. Both, therefore, ought to have the power, that each may defend itself against the other. To the want of this check we owe our paper-money instalment laws, etc.
— Alexander Hamilton
The internal police, as it would be called and understood by the states, ought to be infringed in many cases, as in the case of paper money, and other tricks by which citizens of other states may be affected.
— Gouverneur Morris
In Rhode Island, the judges who refused to execute an unconstitutional law [paper money law] were displaced; and others substituted, by the legislature, who would be the willing instruments of the wicked and arbitrary plans of their masters.
— James Madison
Rhode Island is a full illustration of the insensibility to character produced by a participation of numbers, in dishonorable measures, and of the length to which a public body may carry wickedness and cabal.
— Nathaniel Gorham
The check provided in the second branch [Senate] was not meant as a check on legislative usurpations of power, but on the abuse of lawful powers, on the propensity in the first branch to legislate too much, to run into projects of paper money and similar expedients.
— Gouverneur Morris
Either bad laws will be pushed or not. On the latter supposition, no check will be wanted; on the former, a strong check will be necessary. And this is the proper supposition. Emissions of paper money, largesses to the people, a remission of debts, and similar measures, will at some times be popular, and will be pushed for that reason.
— Gouverneur Morris, on the need of a strong judiciary to check the legislature
He had also known good produced by an apprehension of it [making less than a majority a quorum in both House and Senate]. He had known a paper emission prevented by that cause in Virginia.
— James Madison, speaking of George Mason at the Convention
He recited the history of paper emissions, and the perseverance of the legislative assemblies in repeating them, with all the distressing effects of such measures before their eyes.
— James Madison, speaking of Gouverneur Morris at the Convention
Speculating that national legislators would thankfully not be driven by the same interests as their counterparts in the state governments, interests that had given rise to paper money, Madison notes that,
There has not been any moment since the peace at which the representatives of the Union would have given an assent to paper money or any other measure of a kindred nature.
From Decision in Philadelphia:
What concerned Madison most was not only that the states were flouting national regulations, but that they were treating unjustly certain minorities [the creditor class] within their own borders.
…Madison was especially troubled by the stay laws and tender laws and the paper money that so many of the plain people of the country were clamoring for. These laws, Madison believed, were “oppressing” the creditor minority.
Well your AI beats my 40yo recollection.
AI?
It’s from a book I wrote, started 30 years ago.
AI ain’t got nothing to do with it.
The French government provided loans totaling over two million dollars, primarily negotiated by Benjamin Franklin, and also supplied war materiel through secret corporations to avoid provoking Britain.
However, the American reliance on printing paper money, which could lead to inflation, was a concern, especially as the war progressed and the financial burden grew.
The French were aware that if the Americans failed to meet their financial obligations, faith in the economy could collapse, which would undermine the entire war effort.
Despite these concerns, France continued to support the Americans, providing both loans and gifts, including a final loan of three million livres in 1783.
The French ambassador to the United States after the American Revolutionary War, Edmond-Charles Genet, arrived in 1793 during George Washington's presidency and was concerned about the United States' financial stability, particularly regarding its paper currency and debt obligations. Genet sought American support for France's war against Britain and Spain, including funding for privateers to attack British shipping, and he hoped to secure repayment for French debts incurred during the American Revolution.
However, his actions were seen as a violation of U.S. neutrality, which President Washington had declared in April 1793 to avoid entanglement in European conflicts.
Genet's efforts to involve American citizens in the war and his demands for financial support were met with resistance from Washington and his cabinet, especially Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton, who was wary of the U.S. financial situation and the risks of war.
Although Genet was eventually recalled, his mission highlighted the growing concerns about U.S. fiscal responsibility and the credibility of American paper money in international diplomacy.
Moreover, the principal source of Federal revenue were tariffs. No trade, no revenue. No navy, no trade. Ships aren't cheap. After the Revolutionary War, the US was broke and needed money. Nobody wanted to loan it when they were to be paid with paper.
All completely irrelevant.
Notice the last loan mentioned is in 1783.
The US central government under the AOC was NOT using Rhode Island’s or Maryland’s or Virginia’s money to repay war debt. Period. The term “war debt” appears in the Federalist Papers exactly... ZERO times.
From “Decision in Philadelphia”
What concerned Madison most was not only that the states were flouting national regulations, but that they were treating unjustly certain minorities [the creditor class] within their own borders.
…Madison was especially troubled by the stay laws and tender laws and the paper money that so many of the plain people of the country were clamoring for. These laws, Madison believed, were “oppressing” the creditor minority.
Again: the STATES AFTER THE WAR began printing paper money to allow the poor to steal from the rich.
From the piece:
“The Colliers tell us that the paper money crisis began when debtors, usually farmers struggling to make loan payments, would turn to their state legislatures and push for the creation of paper money. That was welfare pure and simple, as the paper money had nowhere near the worth of the gold, silver, or other medium of payment specified in original loan documents, and that, of course, was exactly the idea behind the legislation. Debtors also forced the creation of such extraordinary measures as ‘stay laws,’ which postponed or even canceled debt collection. Then there were the awful ‘tender laws,’ and ‘ex post facto laws,’ which actually compelled unwilling creditors to accept the newly printed paper money regardless of what the preexisting contract specified. Printing paper money was one thing, but to actually nullify preexisting contracts and force creditors to accept it in payment was simply more than the Framers could tolerate.”
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.