State of the Union: In jeopardy

Yeah, of course you didn't you wouldn't say anything like that just imply it with stupid remarks about his "monarchist tendencies." An honest statement could not be expected from you.

LOL! I am quite careful to document my claims – while you post unsubstantiated opinion, and criticize me for statements I never made. In other words, it is you who have trouble making ‘honest statements’…

;>)

I don't ignore anything he said at any time however I do take the pains to place them within perspective…

“Perspective?” Like “Washington resembled a King more than George the III?” Or your reference to Mr. Jefferson as "scum?"

…rather than glean them for ammo to use in blackening the name of one of our greatest Founders.

As I observed before, Mr. Hamilton’s words speak for themselves – which is why I am far more likely to quote the records of the constitutional convention than are any of the ‘Hamilton groupies’ here. If you believe his proposed national government (with a president and senate serving for life ;>) ‘blacken his name,’ you can blame only Mr. Hamilton himself.

Hamilton's speech was designed to move the CC toward a stronger government and it did just that.

Oh, you betcha! I'm sure Mr. Hamilton would have been horrified if the convention had actually adopted his plan! After all, you insist he didn't really want it to be adopted - it was "designed to move the CC toward a stronger government!"

And I must ask, “stronger” than what – the government established under the Articles? There was no shortage of plans offered that would have established governments “stronger” than the existing government – but Mr. Hamilton’s plan was the only one to closely mimic his preferred ‘British model.’

When you use vague terms such as "resembled" don't be surprised by comments employing them in ways you didn't intend.

You are quoting out of context – something you voiced exception to in Post #112, my hypocritical friend. Irregardless, I’m not at all surprised that you seem unable to understand simple English.

Many people remarked upon Washington's Kingly appearance which "resembled" a King far more than the squat George III. Are you really so dense as to not understand that comment or just playing more games?

Allow me to provide the “context” (something you seem unable to accomplish ;>):

WIJG: The plan of government offered by Mr. Hamilton at the constitutional convention most certainly resembled the British monarchy, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons. (Post #97)

j… : Hamilton, after 1773, was never a Monarchist. So that is just a flat out LIE. Nor do his comments at the CC indicate such. (Post #101)

WIJG: I never stated that Mr. Hamilton was "a Monarchist" before or after "1773," 'so that is just a flat out STRAW MAN ARGUMENT.' …[Quotes of Mr. Hamilton’s comments as recorded in the records of the constitutional convention]… Will you insist that a chief executive serving for life bears no resemblance to the British monarchy? Hmm? That a senate who’s members serve for life bears no resemblance to the House of Lords? Or will you suggest that Mr. Hamilton was lying when he declared his admiration for the British Crown, the House of Lords, and the British model of government in toto? (Post #104)

j… : "Resemblence" to monarchy? LoL. Sure a King resembles a President and Washington resembled a King more than George the III did. Even you won't deny that Hamilton wanted a federal government which was STRONGER than a monarchy. (Post #112)

Quite obviously, you are the one who is either “dense” or “playing… games.” The terms “resembled” and “resemblance” were not used in the previous posts to specify physical “appearance” – until you attempted a retroactive ‘change’ to save your pitiful excuse for an argument.

(No surprise there! ;>)

"Good one" meant just that and was a statement of fact unless you can show another example that was better. Of course you can't.

Actually, I can. Let’s once again refer to the statement in “context” (Mr. Hamilton’s comments as quoted in Post #104):

As to the Executive, it seemed to be admitted that no good one could be established on Republican principles…The English model was the only good one on this subject.

I am quite happy to suggest that Mr. Hamilton was completely wrong: “a good one” could indeed “be established on Republican principles.” That is precisely what the convention did – and our presidency bears little ‘resemblance’ to Mr. Hamilton’s preferred ‘governour-for-life.’

"Hamilton groupies?" hilarious. The man has been systematically calumnated by pipsqueaks, the dishonest and screwballs for 200 yrs. He has no groupies unlike the wildly overrated Jefferson.

In my experience, it is Mr. Jefferson who has been “systematically calumnated by pipsqueaks, the dishonest and screwballs.” Take Post #112, for example, where the author of the Declaration of Independence is referred to as “scum.” The author of Post #112 certainly seems to qualify as a ‘dishonest, screwball pipsqueak’ – and an ignorant, ‘dishonest, screwball pipsqueak’ at that.

;>)

Jefferson was a Republican and his principles certainly reflected that with only accidental similarity to GOP principles. GOP principles have never been used to systemically weaken national security that is the role of the Jefferson descendents, the DemocRAT Party.

LOL! So, the principles evident in Mr. Jefferson’s First Annual Message (“tax cuts, spending cuts, limited constitutional government, free enterprise – and a military response to the piratical actions of foreign governments”) may appear to be identical to “GOP principles,” but they’re not really, because they were “accidental?” Are you suggesting that Mr. Jefferson should have used a crystal ball, looked forward 200 years, and adopted those same principles ‘purposely?’

Or is the “similarity” supposedly “accidental” only because you claim that “GOP principles have never been used to systemically weaken national security?” Are you suggesting that Thomas Jefferson actually hoped the United States would be invaded? (You stated in Post #101 that “Jefferson consciously and happily” jeopardized the National Defense – feel free to prove it).

Or are you suggesting, in retrospect, that Mr. Jefferson simply failed to advocate sufficient defense spending? If so, then Herbert Hoover also “systemically” weakened national security, and presumably (if your idiotic argument is correct ;>) had “nothing in common with Republicans.”

By the way, how did Mr. Jefferson’s emphasis on “free enterprise” weaken national security? Hmm? You’ve declared that “Jefferson was a radical with nothing in common with Republicans.” Quite obviously, the “free enterprise” issue alone proves you don’t have a clue.

;>)

Jefferson's excellent job with the NW Ordinance was soon enough put into the past as he swung into the party of the defenders of slavery soon afterward. Hamilton was not in the Congress at that time but certainly would have supported J.'s effort AS YOU KNOW.

Of course I know “Hamilton was not in the Congress at that time:” that is why I asked what the gentleman was “doing in the New York legislature? In 1787, was Mr. Hamilton abolishing slavery in New York? Or did his State wait a bit (like 40 years ;>)?” Care to answer the questions? I have no doubt that Mr. Hamilton was highly respected in New York: did he use his position in the legislature to abolish slavery, or not? “Answer up, sport.”

Federalist support for the ratification can only be twisted into support for slavery by the most devious and unprincipled of minds.

I disagree: the Constitution protected the institution of slavery; the Federalists knew ‘up-front’ that it protected the institution of slavery; and the Federalists nevertheless chose to promote ratification of the Constitution. (Care to tell us when your supposedly ‘anti-slavery’ Federalists proposed the first constitutional amendment to abolish the “peculiar institution?” Hmm? Did the Federalist Party even exist when the first abolition amendment was proposed? “Answer up, sport.” ;>)

By the way, you denigrate Mr. Jefferson because he supposedly failed to sufficiently support “national security.” This despite the fact that he did not know ‘up-front’ what additional measures, if any, might be required. In short, you magically absolve the Federalists of blame for a Constitution that protected slavery, despite their clear foreknowledge of its provisions – but condemn the Jeffersonian republicans for their lack of prescience. You are nothing if not a hypocrite…

;>)

Only the USSC can declare an act of Congress unconstitutional AS YOU KNOW.

Really? I don’t believe I’ve seen that mentioned in my copy of the Constitution – to which article, section, and clause are you referring? Mr. Justice Scalia (who, unlike you, has actually read the Constitution ;>) observed:

”The Constitution of the United States nowhere says that the Supreme Court shall be the last word on what the Constitution means. Or that the Supreme Court shall have the authority to disregard statutes enacted by the congress of the United States on the ground that in its view they do not comport with the Constitution. It doesn't say that anywhere. We made it up.”

Remarks at ‘The Catholic University of America,’ October 18, 1996

You are apparently unaware that MY opinion or YOUR opinion as to constitutionality means NOTHING.

Actually, “you are apparently unaware that” the written words of the Constitution mean ‘SOMETHING.’ In your fantasy world, it would be entirely constitutional for a D@mocrat-controlled Congress to depose the constitutionally-elected federal government (the Bush administration, for example ;>) and establish a monarchy – a Clinton monarchy! - unless five political appointees, who could themselves be D@mocrats (or monarchists, for that matter ;>) said otherwise. Even though the Constitution nowhere provides for the establishment of a monarchy by simple statute, or for amendment of the Constitution by Congress alone…

I ask again: “what planet are you from? DUtopia or Moveon.orbit?”

;>)

No you quote documents totally out of context to support false propositions when the context often shows that the intent of the authors was totally the opposite of your claim. That is not a sign of a good faith argument nor an honest man.

Wrong again. A few points:

1) I invite you to quote any part of Mr. Jefferson’s First Annual Message that contradict my “propositions” regarding his ‘Republican’ agenda (I have previously provided a link to Mr. Jefferson’s entire message ;>).

2) I invite you to quote the records of the constitutional convention to contradict my “propositions” regarding Mr. Hamilton’s plan of government (the records of the constitutional convention are available online - if you are as completely illiterate as you seem, you can find a link at my FR homepage ;>).

3) Your insistence on ‘quoting documents in context’ is laughable, given your complete failure to document your own ridiculous claims. Have at it, queenhillaryscourtjester: ‘quote documents in context to support your proposition’ that Mr. Jefferson had “nothing in common with Republicans” (see Post #93 ;>). While you’re at it, ‘quote documents in context to support your proposition’ that “Jefferson consciously and happily” jeopardized the National Defense (see Post #101 ;>), and that Mr. Jefferson was "scum" (see Post #112 ;>).

Your failure to comply “is not a sign of a good faith argument nor an honest man.”

;>)

The last quote of mine completely proves the point of your inability to properly convey the meaning of the context of the quote.

Then let’s look at the context:

I don't equate the GOP with militarists as you falsely imply, the equation is GOP strong national security. Nor is a strong national security concern the equivalent to an aggressive policy of conquest like Hitler so don't even try with that.
112 posted on 01/24/2004 11:24:55 PM PST by justshutupandtakeit

There it is, in your own words: “the equation is GOP strong national security.” It does seem to equate the “GOP” with a “strong national security” position - even though it’s not quite ‘proper English’ (‘gibberish’ is a better description ;>)…

;>)

You were the one who brought up Hitler and military expenditures as being the equivalent of the GOP not I.

Wrong again. Allow me (yet again ;>) to provide the facts (see my Post #104):

WIJG: By the way, you repeatedly imply that promoting a strong military is the most important requirement for favorably comparing someone “with Republicans.” On that arbitrary and doubtful basis alone, you discount Mr. Jefferson’s call for tax cuts, spending cuts, efforts to limit the size of government, and even his military response to foreign terrorism (all of which are aspects of modern Republican philosophy). Under your lunatic ‘single standard,’ the author of the Declaration of Independence apparently has “nothing in common with Republicans”- but Adolf Hitler most certainly does.

To suggest that Hitler and the Nazis are “the equivalent of the GOP” is possible only under “your lunatic ‘single standard.’” (“the equation is GOP strong national security?” ;>). My ‘standard’ for comparison quite obviously includes “tax cuts, spending cuts, limited constitutional government, free enterprise – and a military response to the piratical actions of foreign governments.” Under my ‘standard,’ the Nazi Party is quite obviously not “the equivalent of the GOP.”

My response was to the SPECIFIC comment about military expenditures NOT as the totality of the ideology of the GOP.

Which “SPECIFIC comment” was that? You were replying to my Post #104 – and I didn’t even refer to “military expenditures.” Please provide a quote – and be “SPECIFIC.”

;>)

But who would expect you to NOT distort that discussion which led up to your distortion?

LOL! Let me offer you a few pointers, sport:

1) Learn to connect your words to form proper English sentences – “the equation is GOP strong national security” doesn’t qualify.

2) If you can manage to string enough words together to form even a single English sentence, I suggest that you stick to the facts. Ridiculous statements such as “Jefferson was a radical with nothing in common with Republicans” are factually untenable. (But feel free to document your claim, if you can. Which brings us to the next point… ;>)

3) Consider documenting your claims. Your ‘foaming-at-the-mouth’ posts are entertaining, but they prove nothing (other than some tendency towards mental instability on your part – unless tpaine is correct, and you’re just “wired or drunk” ;>). Ante up, queenhillaryscourtjester: provide historical documentation to substantiate your claims. (Ante up, or - as they say - ‘just shut up.’ ;>)

4) Take your own advice and stop ‘distorting’ my statements – I never said Mr. Hamilton was “a Monarchist” (your Post #101), or that Mr. Hamilton had a “desire to create a King” (your Post #112). You appear to offer up such ‘distortions’ because ‘straw man arguments’ are the only kind you have a chance to win.

Hopefully you can apply those four simple suggestions: you can even count them on the fingers of one hand, without pulling your thumb out of your mouth, if you need help remembering them. Good luck!

If you cannot misquote, misinform or distort what would you do? Certainly an honest argument could not be expected.

“Honest argument?” Is that how you would describe your ‘Jefferson is scum’ post? ROTFLMAO!!!

;>)

Feel free to revise & extend your remarks, now that your lucidity has returned.

You may be indulging a forlorn hope - he and his lucidity appear to have parted company...

;>)

Feel free to revise & extend your remarks, now that your lucidity has returned.

You may be indulging a forlorn hope - he and his lucidity appear to have parted company...

I agree, and will take my own advice:

'Feel free to revise & extend your remarks, now that the pitiful remains of your lucidity have temporarily returned.'

No the Bank reined in the excesses which later appeared in the banking system after the demise of said Bank.

States did little to control them outside of a few eastern states. In the others there was an orgy of currency issues which defrauded large numbers of hapless people.

So you are just calling Hamilton a "fellow-traveler" of monarchists? So this is an admission that he was NOT a monarchist?

Careful documentation is NOT posting a couple of weak, out of context comments. THAT is ALL you do. Except for making blatantly false statements of your own and attempting to insult me.

Washington did indeed look more "kingly" than George III and it was commented on by his contemporaries including Abrigal Adams for one. Only you would be duplicitous enough to claim my comment meant anything else.

"ProtoRAT scum" was the term I used wrt Jefferson's team. What would YOU call James Callender and the crew of professional Liars Jefferson supported?

You are not basing your misinformation upon "Hamilton's words" but rather Madison's mistaken record. Neither Hamilton's notes on what he said nor Robert Yates ( a decided enemy of his) nor Rufus King's version of Hamilton's comment agree with Madison that this was anything other than a point of discussion. This is a typical example of your idea of "documentation." IOW leave out context, ignore contrary evidence and misinterprete the meaning of the quote, some "documentation."

No man did more to call for a new constitution, or worked harder to achieve a constitutional convention, none worked harder at the convention to achieve a new constitution, none worked harder to educate the population as to its meaning, none worked harder to have it ratified and none worked harder to ensure its success. Yet, his reward has been baseless accusations and the spreading of falsehoods as to his beliefs and motives. Why would some one do that?

None of the discussion points Hamilton actually made "blacken his name" in any way, only out of context misrepresentations do that.

More falsehoods: I never "insisted" that H. did not want his "plan" adopted. What I said was that he never had any belief that it would be but used the opportunity to push the convention in the direction of a stronger government. He was bringing up points of discussion not a real plan. There is no real dispute about this among those who have actually researched the issue. Nor is there any dispute that he believed the constitution produced a strong enough government. Any "mimicking" of the British government was in terms of dividing power, protecting Liberty and providing stability which were the aims of most at the CC. Neither his "plan" nor any of the many others you referenced suggested COPYING the British government. Though it being the best government in the world at that time it would hardly have been unreasonable to do so. After all the original complaint leading to the Revolution was that the Colonists' "rights as Englishmen" were being denied them.

Monarch-"Absolute ruler," "sovereign" even a lifetime president is not a monarch.

It is false that I quoted out of context by identifying the word you used. "Resembled" is vague as my rejoinder pointed out.

There were no "records of the constitional convention." Madison's notes are not such, they are his private notes as were Hamilton's, King's, Lansing, McHenry and Yates.

I don't believe the participants believed that a strong executive was consistent with "republican principles" that was not just Hamilton's belief. Most preferred the state model with a weak executive, Virginia for example. Many of those opposed to the document based their opposition precisely upon this point.

Hamilton himself says "I may truly then say that I never proposed either a President or Senate for life, and that I neither recommended nor meditated the annihilation of State governments. And I may add that, in the course of discussions at the convention, neither the PROPOSITIONS thrown out for discussions in the convention, nor even those voted in the earlier stages of the deliberation, were CONSIDERED AS EVIDENCES OF A DEFINTIVE OPINION IN THE PROPOSER OR VOTER...EXPERIMENTAL PROPOSITIONS MIGHT BE MADE, which were to be received MERELY AS SUGGESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION. Accordingly, it is a fact that my final opinion WAS AGAINST AN EXECUTIVE DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR, on account of the increased danger to the public tranquility incident to the election of a magistrate of this degree of permanency." Letter to Timothy Pickering which you prefer to ignore.

Jefferson has received more praise and adulation than Hamilton because the Leftists love "democrats" and those who pander to the mob. My opinions of him are, without doubt, in the minority but well founded.

Jefferson had plenty of information about the threat posed by the Napoleonic Wars yet naively rhapsodized about peace. Comparing his times with Hoover is typical disingeniousness.
There was no world wide war occurring during the twenties as there was during 1790-1815. Hitler was not in power until after Hoover left office. Thus, there is no comparison whatsoever. Jefferson's intentions were to weaken the federal government and disregard national security needs and his tax policies were the MEANS used to accomplish that end. There is no comparison to the GOP.

So slaver can support "free enterprise" since the latter is incompatible with slavery. Hamilton was one of the founders of the New York Society for the Manumission of Slaves "...which carried through the legislature a program of gradual emanicipation." And he provided free legal services to escaped slaves. How typical of you to condemn him while ignoring the democrat-republican support for slavery. Had Federalists had their way slavery would have been ended far sooner than it was.

Nor did the constitution "protect" slavery. It prohibited any federal action until 1808 but in no way "protected" it. Watching you flounder around grasping desperately at any straw to blacken the name of Hamilton is amusing and instructive to any onlookers. Rather than ask what J did after the NW Ordinance you mislead about the actions of one vehemently opposed to the institution and give one profitting from it a pass. How democRATic. Particularly illustrative of your duplicity and dishonesty is your attempt to disguise the FACT that the NY legislature was controlled by Hamilton's enemies under the control of the slimely Governor Clinton while pretending that he didn't do all he could to end slavery.

Without a SC able to rule on laws' constitutionality there is no chance to have a Law of the Land now is there? It is meaningless unless the Court can declare laws against the constitution null and void now isn't it? Scalia's comment is irrelevent surely he does not believe the Court is powerless in the face of unconstitutional laws (are you claiming he would say the Court could not rule your beloved Queen Hillary law was unconstitutional?) There is no
need for such a phrase to be in the Constitution. Implied powers are part of it. Surely you would not argue that just because the power to patrol our borders is not specified it does not exist? Actually you probably would.

Laws are never declared unconstitutional except by the Court. WIJG's "yada,yada, yada" doesn't quiet make it.

Once again NO OFFICIAL RECORDS of the CC were allowed to be kept.

You threw Hitler into your farrago of nonsense trying to imply a similarity to the GOP's concern with a strong military. But I am happy to see you concede Hitler would not have been a good GOPer.

You claimed my contention was that a strong national security and military was the "single standard" I used to determine GOPishness and then dragged Ole Adoph into the discussion. The first sentence in that paragraph referenced the concern about a strong military. Part of that is military expenditures. The discussion was about J's reduction of military expenditures and downsizing of the military and his ignoring the danger posed by cutting military spending and reducing the Navy's ship construction program. How lame are you going to get in your attempt to mislead and obscure the points of discussion?

My useage of the English language is certainly as proper as yours. Just because I don't gleefully leap at your missed punctuation marks or inadvertent typos is not evidence to the contrary. Even if your grammar was perfect the puacity of ideas and utter disregard for truth would obviate it.

I rarely quote and do not intend to start. Nothing is less interesting than dueling quotes and multiple links both of which indicate a person not willing to state his beliefs in his own words.

Your method is to try and divert from your falsehoods by spewing out of context quotations which require your antagonist to spend valuable time in correcting, explaining and providing the background within which those quotes were made.

Hamilton was one of the founders of the New York Society for the Manumission of Slaves "...which carried through the legislature a program of gradual emanicipation."

It should be noted in fairness that Jefferson also worked for the gradual emancipation of slavery in Virginia, but as I'm sure you could understand, the political situation there was markedly different than in New York state.

No the Bank reined in the excesses which later appeared in the banking system after the demise of said Bank.

The panic of 1819 doesn't attest to that. The Bank was expanding credit way beyond what was healthy, and was forced to contract drastically, triggering the panic. Very similar to what happened 110 years later.

Jefferson freed only members of the Hemmings family after his death (not Sally since freed slaves had to leave the state and that would have meant leaving her family.) Compare this to the actions of Washington who freed all his slaves upon Martha's death.

Actually the same hatred and fear was visited on Blacks in NY as in Virginia, maybe even more. The riots in NY city as early as 1745 showed a cruelty and human insensibility unknown in Virginia and those in 1863 reached a depth of human depravity we find hard to understand. Can you imagine attacking a ORPHANAGE in an attempt to burn the little Black children alive?

Jefferson's work against slavery pretty much ended with the NW Ordinance. One of his very first acts as president was to impose an embargo against the rebels in Domingo who were trying to throw out their masters, the French. He was a great one for high-minded phrases but very poor on action.

It was not the expansion of money by the BUS that caused the panic but the resumption of payment in specie demanded by it from the state banks which had wildly over-inflated the Money supply. State banks had virtually no regulation other than the discipline imposed through the BUS. Its banknotes circulated at face value everywhere, those of the state banks were subject to discounts of 0 to 100 percent. Any traveler would need notes from the BUS since the state banks were not acceptable outside certain areas within a state at worse and an entire state at best.

The circulation of all banks in the US was over 100 million in 1817 (a yr after rechartering) and 45 million in 1819. Most of the blame for economic dislocations were to be placed in the laps of the state banks not the BUS.

What "union"? We're just a bunch of special interest groups formed to look like states.

Actually the same hatred and fear was visited on Blacks in NY as in Virginia, maybe even more. The riots in NY city as early as 1745 showed a cruelty and human insensibility unknown in Virginia and those in 1863 reached a depth of human depravity we find hard to understand.

I wasn't referring to hatred of blacks when I spoke of the political situation in Virginia; I was referring to the dependence on slavery. I'm well aware that the North, right up to the civil war and beyond, never based their opposition to slavery on any kind of humanitarian motives.

One of his very first acts as president was to impose an embargo against the rebels in Domingo who were trying to throw out their masters, the French.

I tried to verify that, but instead found this from the Library of Congress:

Though Jefferson, fearing a French foothold too close to the U.S., had sent arms and supplies to the rebels, the successful revolt led to increased fears of slave insurrections and to tighten restrictions on blacks in the southern states.

Further, he had an interest in frustrating French objectives on that island so as to make them more disposed to sell Louisiana.

Any traveler would need notes from the BUS since the state banks were not acceptable outside certain areas within a state at worse and an entire state at best.

Then who were the customers for these state banks, if their currency was so worthless?

You are not basing your misinformation upon "Hamilton's words" but rather Madison's mistaken record.

LOL! “Mistaken?” You’re joking, right? In fact, it is the other ‘records’ of the convention that are ‘questionable’ – which I will document shortly.

;>)

Neither Hamilton's notes on what he said nor Robert Yates ( a decided enemy of his) nor Rufus King's version of Hamilton's comment agree with Madison that this was anything other than a point of discussion. This is a typical example of your idea of "documentation." IOW leave out context, ignore contrary evidence and misinterprete the meaning of the quote, some "documentation."

Mr. Hamilton spoke at length on Monday, June 18, 1787. Mr. Madison’s notes are quite lengthy, quite detailed, and quite specific. Rufus King, on the other hand, took rather cursory notes, and may even have been mistaken with regard to the date. Nor did Mr. Hamilton himself pretend to make any notations regarding the day in question.

Since you constantly whine about “context,” I will provide the following. As a footnote to his observations, Mr. Madison noted:

"The speech introducing the plan, as above taken down & written out was seen by Mr. Hamilton, who approved its correctness, with one or two verbal changes, which were made as he suggested. The explanatory observations which did not immediately follow, were to have been furnished by Mr. H. who did not find leisure at the time to write them out, and they were not obtained.”

The Yale law School web site observes:

Judge Yates, in his notes, appears to have consolidated the explanatory with the introductory observations of Mr. Hamilton (under date of June 19th, a typographical error). It was in the former, Mr. Madison observed, that Mr. Hamilton, in speaking of popular governments, however modified, made the remark attributed to him by Judge Yates, that they were 'but pork still with a little change of sauce."'

As for the relative ‘quality’ of the various records:

Madison was …an accomplished note taker of debates, having practiced and refined his skill in Congress. The scholarly Virginian had a knack for isolating the essentials of the argument while listing the supporting evidence given by each speaker. He explained that he "was not a little aided by practice & by a familiarity with the style and the train of observation & reasoning which characterized the principal speakers" (17-18). He never missed a day of the convention, nor at most "a cassual fraction of an hour in any day, so that I could not have lost a single speech, unless a very short one" (18). He wrote his notes in full words, abbreviations, and symbols known only to him. Later each evening he expanded these rough notes. On occasion speakers gave him written copies of their speeches and, naturally, he had whatever written text he prepared for the more than two hundred times he spoke in the convention. The labor of taking notes, expanding them, and preparing himself as one of the most important participants in the debates, Madison said, nearly killed him.

Madison kept his notes with his papers until he died. He allowed only a handful of individuals to see the manuscript. Sporadically he worked on the notes, especially after 1789 when he copied William Jackson's manuscript proceedings of the convention, which contained the exact wording of motions and resolutions as well as the votes on these measures. After examining all of the changes, the editors of the modern edition of Madison's papers maintain that the later additions made by Madison "were motivated by an earnest desire for completeness and accuracy" (Madison Papers, X, 9).

Madison always intended that his notes should be published, but he steadfastly felt that a posthumous publication would best serve the American public. Other accounts of the convention were published for partisan purposes--Luther Martin of Maryland published a lengthy account of the convention during the debate over ratifying the Constitution in 1788. During the presidential campaign of 1808, Edmund Genet (the former Citizen Genet of 1793) aided the candidacy of his father-in-law (Vice President George Clinton) by publishing an adulterated excerpt of Robert Yates's notes as a short pamphlet. Genet altered Yates's notes in an attempt to discredit Madison's presidential candidacy by showing that he had been an ardent nationalist during the convention. Although he publicly criticized the inaccuracy of Yates's notes, Madison refused to draw upon his own notes in his defense. In 1819, at the order of Congress, the convention's proceedings were published, followed two years later by the full set of Yates's altered notes.

John P. Kaminski (Director of the ‘Center for the Study of the American Constitution’ at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and editor of ‘Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution’)

And from another source:

…Yates and his colleague Lansing left the Convention early…Yates's notes [therefore] cease with the fifth of July. For the earlier days of the Convention the notes of proceedings are quite brief; and while the reports are somewhat fuller after the presentation of the New Jersey plan on June 15, it was evident that they did not give at all a complete picture of the proceedings, though they threw a great deal of light upon what had taken place and in particular upon the attitude of individuals in the debates.13

…Madison was evidently regarded by his fellow-delegates to the Convention as a semi-official reporter of their proceedings, for several of them took pains to see that he was supplied with copies of their speeches and motions.18 And from the day of their publication until the present, Madison's notes of the Debates have remained the standard authority for the proceedings of the Convention... Because of misquotations of his own remarks, Madison condemned Yates's notes severely, as being a "very erroneous edition of the matter."21

… [T]he next most important notes to those which have been considered are the notes of Rufus King… The original notes are, in the main, memoranda taken at the time in the Convention on odds and ends of paper.25 Each sheet or scrap of paper is dated and most of them are endorsed with date and substance of the contents, so that in only one or two cases can there be any doubt as to the place and order of the notes.

At any rate, many years after the Convention was over, [King] attempted to put his notes into better form.26 In doing this work, although in most cases he did not venture to change the substance of his earlier records, he did drop out the dates in a number of instances; he sometimes omitted important items or notes, either unintentionally or because he could not understand them; and in a few cases, at least one or two of which are important, he modified his original notes. It was this revised copy that was printed (1894) as an appendix to volume I of the Life and Correspondence of Rufus King. The editor, Doctor Charles R. King, grandson of Rufus King, attempted to insert some of the omitted items, but as he evidently was not familiar with the other records of the Convention his well-meant efforts only added to the confusion.

Alexander Hamilton's notes were found among the Hamilton Papers in the Library of Congress.32 They are little more than brief memoranda and… are of importance not so much in determining what others thought or said as in tracing the development of the writer's own reasoning.

Max Farrand (editor), The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, 1911

You claim Mr. Madison’s detailed records are “mistaken” (even though they are recognized as the “standard authority for the proceedings of the Convention” ;>), preferring the “brief” and possibly “altered” notes of Yates, the incomplete and ‘confused’ notes of King (written on “odds and ends of paper” ;>), and Mr. Hamilton’s “notes” (amounting to “little more than brief memoranda” ;>). Why? Because the most detailed and respected record contradicts your claims.

On the other hand, I provide “context,” give lesser weight to unreliable “evidence,” and offer quotes that ‘speak for themselves.’ Mr. Madison’s records are indeed ‘a typical example of my idea of "documentation."’

Yet, his reward has been baseless accusations and the spreading of falsehoods as to his beliefs and motives. Why would some one do that?

Perhaps you could tell us – after all, that is precisely how you have treated Thomas Jefferson.

None of the discussion points Hamilton actually made "blacken his name" in any way, only out of context misrepresentations do that.

Then why do you object so strenuously when I quote Mr. Madison’s records of his discussion?

More falsehoods: I never "insisted" that H. did not want his "plan" adopted.

“Falsehood?” Certainly not. May statement can be easily identified – by most people – as ‘sarcasm.’

He was bringing up points of discussion not a real plan. There is no real dispute about this among those who have actually researched the issue.

“No dispute?” Certainly there is dispute, as the best record of Mr. Hamilton’s remarks makes apparent:

Let one branch of the Legislature hold their places for life or at least during good behaviour. Let the Executive also be for life. He appealed to the feelings of the members present whether a term of seven years, would induce the sacrifices of private affairs which an acceptance of public trust would require, so so as to ensure the services of the best Citizens. On this plan we should have in the Senate a permanent will, a weighty interest, which would answer essential purposes. But is this a Republican Govt., it will be asked? Yes if all the Magistrates are appointed, and vacancies are filled, by the people, or a process of election originating with the people.

James Madison, The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, June 18, 1787

“On this PLAN we should have… a permanent will,” referring to the Senators holding their “places for life.” You, of course, discard the “standard authority for the proceedings of the Convention,” preferring the “brief,” “altered,” or ‘confused’ notes of Yates, King and Hamilton.

(It’s quite entertaining to note that Mr. Hamilton himself apparently realized his plan would be understood by some of the delegates to be a ‘monarchy in republican clothing’ – as his rhetorical questions made plain… ;>)

Though [the British government] being the best government in the world at that time it would hardly have been unreasonable to do so.

Bull crap. Mr. Hamilton apparently believed that, “[a]s to the Executive, it seemed to be admitted that no good one could be established on Republican principles.” Quite obviously “a good one… could be established on Republican principles” – and was.

Monarch-"Absolute ruler," "sovereign" even a lifetime president is not a monarch.

“More falsehoods:” I never stated a “lifetime president” was a “monarch.” And your ‘straw man arguments’ aren’t very credible…

Jefferson has received more praise and adulation than Hamilton because the Leftists love "democrats" and those who pander to the mob.

Actually, ‘the Leftists love Mr. Hamilton and his ideas regarding government.’ I suggest that you review a copy of Hamilton’s Republic, edited by Michael Lind. Mr. Lind is a ‘Leftist;’ like you, he is a ‘Hamilton groupie;’ unlike you, he recognizes FDR and LBJ as two of the great Hamiltonian presidents of the last century. (By the way, which party do you believe FDR and LBJ 'called home?' ;>)

My opinions of him are, without doubt, in the minority but well founded.

“In the minority,” without a doubt. As for “well founded” – you have yet to prove your claim that Thomas Jefferson had “nothing in common with Republicans,” so your ‘foundation’ continues to consist of nothing but hot air…

Jefferson had plenty of information about the threat posed by the Napoleonic Wars yet naively rhapsodized about peace. Comparing his times with Hoover is typical disingeniousness.

So now it’s “naively rhapsodized about peace.” What happened to “Jefferson consciously and happily [jeopardized the National Defense]?” One results from a less than perfect grasp of military affairs. The other amounts to treason. You’ve claimed both – and your claims are contradictory. Which one is it? And why did you post the other?

There is no comparison to the GOP.

“No comparison?” Only in your fantasy world. Those of us who do not suffer from your bigoted tunnel vision recognize Mr. Jefferson’s call for tax cuts, spending cuts, efforts to limit the size of government, and a military response to foreign terrorism as definite points of comparison to the modern GOP.

Hamilton was one of the founders of the New York Society for the Manumission of Slaves…

Strange; on other threads I’ve quoted extensively from a legal treatise by a United States Attorney, a friend of Washington and Franklin, who joined the ‘Maryland Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery’ in 1792 – and you discounted his words completely. Has membership in an abolition society suddenly become a valuable qualification in your eyes?

"...which carried through the legislature a program of gradual emanicipation."

“Gradual” seems to have been the operative word for Hamiltonians. New York waited forty years from the time of Mr. Hamilton’s service in the legislature – and Mr. Lincoln proposed a constitutional amendment in 1861 that would have put off abolition until the end of that century. Looks like they weren’t necessarily in any big hurry…

How typical of you to condemn him while ignoring the democrat-republican support for slavery.

And ‘how typical of you’ to hypocritically ignore Mr. Jefferson’s efforts:

[I]n 1769, while a member of the Virginia House of Burgesses, Jefferson helped to draft a bill to allow for “manumission by deed” – a procedure whereby slave-owners could transfer, by deed, their “property interest” in slaves back to the slaves themselves, setting them free. The bill eventually passed in 1782, and Jefferson – by then the Governor of the new state – signed it into law that year;

[A]s a fledgling practicing lawyer, in 1770, in his argument in the obscure case of Howell v. Netherland, which involved the freedom or enslavement of a third-generation mulatto, Jefferson had pled that “we are all born free” and that slavery was contrary to natural law – an argument the court dismissed out of hand.

Jefferson prepared not one but two drafts of a Constitution for the State of Virginia, one in 1776, one in 1783. The earlier draft would have prohibited the importation of slaves into the State: “No person hereafter coming into this county shall be held within the same in slavery under any pretext whatever.” The 1783 draft went further: “The General assembly shall not have to power to ... permit the introduction of any more slaves to reside in this state, or the continuance of slavery beyond the generation which shall be living on the 31st day of December 1800; all persons born after that day being hereby declared free.”

…’Notes on Virginia’ was to be the only book Jefferson published in his lifetime, and an extraordinary book it was. Written in 1781… [i]ts passages on slavery – “worth more,” John Adams wrote, “than diamonds [and] will have more effect than volumes written by mere philosophers” – ensured that it would receive a chilly reception among the Virginia establishment. Jefferson did more than merely state his opposition to slavery, which was already well-known at the time; he suggested that the country was already moving, inexorably, driven and guided by the Almighty Himself, towards emancipation…

As a member of the federal Congress in 1783-84, Jefferson drafted and submitted to that body a Report on the Government of the Western Territories, which Congress enacted into law as the Ordinance of 1784. It provided that “after the year 1800 of the Christian era, there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude . . . otherwise than in punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted to have been personally guilty” in any part of the United States outside of the original 13 colonies. The slavery prohibition was deleted by Congress from the final bill – by a single vote…

David G. Post, Temple University Law School

Had Federalists had their way slavery would have been ended far sooner than it was.

Care to answer the questions I asked in Post #141? “Care to tell us when your supposedly ‘anti-slavery’ Federalists proposed the first constitutional amendment to abolish the ‘peculiar institution?’… Did the Federalist Party even exist when the first abolition amendment was proposed?”

“Answer up, sport.”

Nor did the constitution "protect" slavery. It prohibited any federal action until 1808 but in no way "protected" it. Watching you flounder around grasping desperately at any straw to blacken the name of Hamilton is amusing and instructive to any onlookers.

ROTFLMAO!!! I recommend that you procure a copy of the Constitution of the United States. Assuming you can find one, take a look at Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3.

‘Watching you flounder around the Constitution, grasping desperately at any straw to defend the name of Hamilton, is amusing and instructive to any onlookers!’

;>)

Rather than ask what J did after the NW Ordinance you mislead about the actions of one vehemently opposed to the institution and give one profitting from it a pass. How democRATic.

“After the NW Ordinance?” Why, Mr. Jefferson did this:

[President] Jefferson introduced, Congress passed, and Jefferson signed, a bill prohibiting any further importation of slaves as of the earliest date the Constitution permitted: January 1, 1808.

David G. Post, Temple University Law School

“How democRATic” of you to ignore documented, historical facts.

Particularly illustrative of your duplicity and dishonesty is your attempt to disguise the FACT that the NY legislature was controlled by Hamilton's enemies under the control of the slimely Governor Clinton while pretending that he didn't do all he could to end slavery.

Gosh – I was under the impression, based on your expansive descriptions of ‘The Great Man,’ that Mr. Hamilton had more influence in his home State. Looks like I should check the historical record, rather than trust your emotional diatribes…

;>)

Without a SC able to rule on laws' constitutionality there is no chance to have a Law of the Land now is there?

Not at all. I must ask, as did a Jeffersonian republican almost 200 years ago: 'Is the Constitution supreme over the court? Or is the court supreme over the Constitution?'

"Answer up, sport."

[The Constitution] is meaningless unless the Court can declare laws against the constitution null and void now isn't it?

Wrong again. In fact, it only becomes “meaningless” if fools like you substitute the pronouncements of five lawyers for the written words of the Constitution itself. You are the one telling us that the establishment of a Clinton monarchy would be constitutional, even though there is NO constitutional basis for such an anti-republican act. Having read the Constitution, I am quite prepared to declare that a Clinton monarchy, established by a D@mocrat Congress, would not be constitutional - whether the high court agreed with me or not. It is your position that is dependent on a supposedly “meaningless” document.

Scalia's comment is irrelevant…

Actually, it is your unsubstantiated, lame-@ss opinion that is irrelevant!

Laws are never declared unconstitutional except by the Court. WIJG's "yada,yada, yada" doesn't quiet make it.

LOL! Quote the constitutional article, section, and clause to which you are referring, my ignorant friend. I imagine it’s right next to the authority to establish a Clinton monarchy!

(queenhillaryscourtjester’s "’yada,yada, yada’ doesn't quiet make it,” now does it? ;>)

Once again NO OFFICIAL RECORDS of the CC were allowed to be kept.

“Once again,” Mr. Madison’s writings are the “standard authority for the proceedings of the Convention” – your desperate insistence to the contrary not withstanding.

But I am happy to see you concede Hitler would not have been a good GOPer.

I have nothing to concede – Hitler would compare favorably to the GOP only under your ‘standard,’ not mine.

You claimed my contention was that a strong national security and military was the "single standard" I used to determine GOPishness... How lame are you going to get in your attempt to mislead and obscure the points of discussion?

Are you attempting to make some point – or just changing the subject?

My useage of the English language is certainly as proper as yours… Even if your grammar was perfect the puacity of ideas and utter disregard for truth would obviate it.

(“Puacity?” ROTFLMAO!!! ;>)

I rarely quote and do not intend to start.

Obviously. Your ridiculous opinions can not be substantiated, so why would you even attempt it?

Nothing is less interesting than dueling quotes and multiple links both of which indicate a person not willing to state his beliefs in his own words.

I state my beliefs in my own words, and can substantiate them. You offer comic-book opinions, and refuse to substantiate them. No risk of “dueling quotes” here!

;>)

It should be noted in fairness that Jefferson also worked for the gradual emancipation of slavery in Virginia...

(Quite true - but don't expect "fairness" from our friend. He prefers his 'comic-book' opinions to documented, historical fact. Unfortunately for him, many of us who know better won't 'justshutupandtakeit'... ;>)

LOL!

(I don't think you need your own advice! ;>)

Yeah, why don't you list some of the evidence for this gradual emancipation? It was so gradual he didn't even arrange for his slaves to be freed after his death.

Desperate people, ignorant people. There are legions in all times and at all places.

In "The Presidency of Thomas Jefferson" Forrest MacDonald describes the embargo.

Desperate people, ignorant people.

You mean like the federal government? ;-)

The war also brought a rash of paper money, as the government borrowed heavily to finance the war. The government depended on note-issuing banks spread throughout the country. All of this put tremendous strains on the banks’ reserves of specie held against such notes. This would inevitably lead to suspension of specie payments in some parts of the country in 1814.

There was no "Hamilton Plan" submitted to the CC. All his comments were submitted as points of discussion as he clearly stated in the letter to Pickering which you ignore, Sport. Any actual submittal of a "plan" would have been voted upon and there was never any such vote, now was there Sport?

Thanks for pointing out the minimal action of Jefferson on slavery after his initial concerns before 1784-5. It verifies my claim. Reducing imports of slaves merely made the stocks held by slavers more valuable after 1808.

There were NO Official notes. I will amend my comment about Madison and say that rather than mistaken he just doesn't make it clear that the comments of Hamilton were NOT a plan.
They were talking points to begin discussions, clarify differences in systems, etc. His thinking did change during the convention as he states. Madison's notes are the best ones but are in no way Official. Nor do they include much of Hamilton's comments which took a whole day and, according to Richard Morris, marked a turning point of the convention.

I have said nothing about Jefferson that is baseless. Attempts to dispell the baseless adulation of the man are long overdue since he has been the darling of the Left for over 200 yrs. Certainly he was the most Leftist president we have had until FDR.

Where does "It seemed to be admitted..." mean that such a statement reflected H's wishes or even hopes? It was the conventional wisdom of the day and was disproven by the work of the CC work in which Hamilton was a major player.

Quoting Hamilton's comments and questions does not prove they were part of a plan only points to discuss and objections to be considered. You keep mistaking the two or deliberately trying to obscure the difference.

There are no contradictions between J's sabotaging building a strong military and his rhapsodies. How ridiculous to think so even for you, sport, since we see today's RATS do it all the time.

Jefferson opposed strong military, strong central government, a central bank, funding government debt (rather than defaulting as J. urged), economic development not based upon agriculture, equal rights for blacks- all key elements of the GOP history. He supported the most violent Leftist revolution in history up to the 20th century. Sure Lovers of the Reign of Terror are real GOPers. Selecting a few policies of overlap is insufficient proof of J's GOPishness, sport.

Membership in a Manumission Society is relevent only to refute your baseless and inane argument. I have no beef with Luther Martin's (if that is whom you are referencing) anti-slavery views and actions rather commend him for them.

By the time the Constitution allowed anti-slavery legislation the Federalists were dead as an effective political force.

Stating that the laws of States were operative on keeping slaves enslaved does not mean it "protected" slavery only that it acknowledged that state law was supreme in this area since there could be no contrary federal action until 1808.
Slavery was not made unconstitutional so what is your point, spurt? You could just as validly claim that the Constitution protected prostitution too since it did not outlaw it.

Hamilton had great influence everywhere in the nation and world that is why Talleyrand called him one of the three greatest men of his day. Hamilton was a pivot around which political events spun for almost 20 yrs. His deadly enemy, Jefferson, called him a "Collosus." Without Hamilton the democrat-republicans would have seized and held power almost immediately upon foundation of the United States of America even you can't deny THAT.

What a silly and totally rhetorical question: Constitution vs SC. It was a political whine from Jeffersonians unhappy because they could not bend the Court to the popular will and away from the Founders' intentions, snert.

And what is it that you think "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made...." means if the Court has no power to void laws contrary to the Constitution? Actually, there was no real dispute about this until Marshall's rulings started to go against Jefferson's wishes. State (and even lesser) courts had the power to void legislative acts from their legislatures. This was not a controversial issue. Congressional actions were reviewed for constitutionality even while Jay was chief justice during Washington's first term.