The Worst Supreme Court Decision Ever?

The Federalists' affiliation with English Tories is a rather profound aspect of early American history. There was quite a dramatic struggle with the Federalists over individual rights during the creation of the American form of government. The book The American Tory, by William H. Nelson is a good source.

Here is a brief online description of Federalists and their policitcal loyalties in context:

"...indeed, it is not a strained construction of the times to regard the entire Federalist period from the American point of view as reactionary - a reaction against the doctrines of natural rights, individualism, and states' rights, and the financial looseness of the period of the War of Independence and the succeeding years of the Confederation. The Federalists were charged by the Republicans with being aristocrats and monarchists, and it is certain that their leaders... (who were really a very remarkable body of men) distrusted democratic government; that their Sedition Law was outrageous in itself, and (as well as the Alien Law) bad as a party measure; that in disputes with Great Britain they were true English Tories when contrasted with the friendly attitude toward America held by many English Liberals; and that they persisted in New England as a pro-British, aristocratic social-cult long after they lost effective political influence. In short, the country was already thoroughly democratic in spirit, while Federalism stood for obsolescent social ideas and was infected with political "Toryism" fatally against the times."

Justa, With all due respect, you don't seem to understand the difference between what a Tory stood for during the Revolution, and how the word Tory is being used in the piece you are quoting from.

In the first instance, and how you stated it in your original post -- "Did you know many Federalists were former Tories?"

To say "former Tories" indicates they they either fought for or sided with King George and the British during the Revolution. Tories were the American Loyalists in that context. To say that Adams, who worked harder and sacrificed so much for Independence, or Hamilton who lead bayonet charges against the British were "former Torries" is absolutely ridiculous.

In the latter context of the alignment of Federalist and Republicans (nee - Anti-Federalists) in the period after the Revolution up through the creation of the Constitution and the first 20-30 years of America under that document, the description of the Federalists as "Tories" is perhaps valid, (albeit a political slander used by the Jeffersonian Republicans of that time) in that it meant the more conservative of the two political parties, which the Federalists were. (In England, the Torries were the Conservative party and the Whigs, the more Liberal party.)

Please understand the difference. Yes, the Federalists were much more Conservative than the Republicans, and they did not trust the direct democracy (mob rule as they saw it) tendencies of the Jeffersonians. (Neither do I BTW) But they were loyal to the Republic and were the driving force behind the creation of the Constitution. If it had been up to the Jeffersonian factions, we would not have had a Constitution, would have remained fractured states involved in constant intrigues and destructive inter-state rivalries, and IMHO, we would not have remained independent for very long. We would have bankrupted ourselves and the British would have easily walked in and picked up the pieces. It was the Federalists who prevented that.

But you seem to think that the Federalists were tied to the British monarchy which is simply not true.

Well, I'm sorry, if you couldn't see my point in the above excerpt you're probably going to have to read the book.

Who do you think former Tories voted for and elected following the Revolution?

Here. Here is a (vague) online reference to the Tory influence in the Federalist party prior to Marbury v. Madison.

"Consequently, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison [Federalists], assuming leadership of the nationalists, made an end run around the Articles and called for a special convention to meet in Philadelphia. Assisting them was a growing antidemocratic mood throughout the country. Many Tories had returned to political life, and although they had bitterly opposed independence, they still shared the political vision of the nationalists."

As Federalists' political power declined they sought to achieve through the federal courts what they could not secure through the various legislatures; hence, Marbury v. Madison.

Marbury vs. Madison... Was decided in 1803 in plain sight of the Framers and the authority of courts to nullify legislation was already a part of the British tradition.

Even before Marbury, way back in 1796, the Supreme Court (which then included 4 signers of the Constitution), decided Hylton v. United States, a constitutional challenge to a federal tax law. The Court upheld the law's constitutionality, but not one of the justices doubted that the Court had the power to decide if the law was constitutional.

Who do you think former Tories voted for and elected following the Revolution?

I don't know... some dude up in Nova Scotia (over 100,000 American Loyalists fled there alone) or out in Bermuda? There weren't a hell of a lot of "former Tories" left in the US after the Revolution. The Brits took most with them when they left.

Look at who was in office after the Revolution --- virtually all men who fought in one way or another in the Revolution. Do you consider Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Jay, Hamilton and the rest to be "Tories"? That's just insane. They all quite literally put their lives on the line to defeat the British.

Again... you are grossly confusing the period and confounding the very real Tories (Loyalists) who existed in cities like New York, Charleston and Savannah and the political slurs hurled at the Federalists more than a decade later by the Jeffersonians.

Jefferson's attack dogs even called George Washington a "Royalist" seeking to enrich himself because he followed Federalist policies. Yes, politics was every bit as nasty then as it is now. Calling the Federalists Tories back then is about the same as the Democrats calling Republicans fascists today. It was just raw, rotten politics.

"Consequently, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison [Federalists], assuming leadership of the nationalists, made an end run around the Articles and called for a special convention to meet in Philadelphia. Assisting them was a growing antidemocratic mood throughout the country. Many Tories had returned to political life, and although they had bitterly opposed independence, they still shared the political vision of the nationalists."

Justa, from your "obscure" reference --- out of curiosity, do you know what that special convention in Philadelphia was about?

"...the court, sweepingly declared Congress’s prohibition of slavery in territories north of 36° 30’, enacted in 1820 as part of the Missouri Compromise, to be unconstitutional."

A ridiculous standard that was at best, indicative of the logic, laws, and conflict of those times.

Dred Scott was absurd, but more bad was the Roe v. Wade, and of course the Campaign Finance idiocy of just the other day.

In the end, the Campaign Finance may likely do the most damage to our Nation.

Interesting, thanks.

You asked for a source, I posted two. You ignored them and made minutae out of the issue which you then offered as some sort of rebuttal.

What's the point of debate if there's no integrity in the discussion?

You've wasted my time.

What's the point of debate if there's no integrity in the discussion?

None, I suppose if you want to take a comic book view of history. From your Libertarian standpoint, the problem seems to be the Constitution itself.