Federalist Papers Identified How Democrats Would Destroy Us

All of the founders had their human limitations. We have a tendancy to want them to fit our political molds of our era and that is a natural short-sightedness.

Adams is my “essential” man from early to later years. But even when we damn Paine for the French era, we have to take his early inpirational Common Sense as helpful and catching the spirit that was in the air.

We can go back to James Otis or forward to James Randolph of Roanoke and find early patriots and founders that despite contributions at a certain time in their life had periods of outright deficiencies as functioning public people. Our own age has such as the last years of Goldwater make clear.

And as long as the thread starts off with Madison, the “Last of the Fathers” is a great read on him for those that are looking for one.

Jefferson’s treatment of Burr was far more tyrannical than anything that occurred under the Federalists. While it has been virtually swept under the rug by the dominant history, it is an incredible story. What is mysterious is why Jefferson did it.

Callender was a loose cannon who eventually had Jefferson in his sights. It was he who broke the Sally Hemmings story. Jefferson had learned through Hamilton’s reaction to the Maria Reynolds scandal to keep his mouth shut. H, on the other hand, went and wrote a sixty or seventy page pamphlet confessing to the affair and forever ended any chance of becoming president.

What is lost in the Hemmings story is the fact that she was a half-sister to his beloved wife and virtually white. She must have reminded him of Martha a great deal. I don’t view this as a exploitative relationship nor condemn Jefferson for it. It appears to having been a loving one but, so far out of the acceptable at the time, as to have a tragic dimension to it. Sally’s family was the only slaves on the plantation freed by his will and several of her children were allowed to “escape”. One of her sons even learned the violin which Jefferson played prior to an accident in France which ruined his grip.

Genet became an embarrassment to Jefferson (”...he will sink the Republican interest if they do not abandon him.”)and he had to cut ties because Washington had explicitly forbidden Genet from outfitting privateers or bringing French prizes to American ports. He proceeded to do just AND try and raise the masses against Washington himself. J had no option and only regretted Genet’s lack of tact and understanding. Don’t forget Jefferson was still part of Washington’s cabinet at that time so he had to be somewhat circumspect since he was already betraying Washington in a number of other areas. A betrayal which earned Washington’s Olympian scorn thereafter.

Not only did the Jeffersonians oppose neutrality but he convinced Madison to “enter the lists” against Hamilton in the “Pacificus vs. Helvidius” series of articles. Madison wouldn’t try that again.

Formation of the Democratic-Republican Societies were another means of carrying on pro-French propaganda. There is no question that the Republicans were consistently pro-French and anti-British. Whereas, all Americans were initially happy to see the French Revolution Federalist support dropped away when it became terrible violent and the Reign of Terror began. But the Republicans remained pro-French.

The danger of disunion was so great that Hamilton spent most of Washington’s Farewell Address on Neutrality, and the folly of secession. It was a warning against taking the side of France in the wars. And you need to consider that H was in no way anti-French. His first language was French and his mother was French. Some of his closest friends during the War were the French officers sent over to fight with us. It was to Hamilton that Lafayette spent his young son when the Reign of Terror was raging.

But he feared and resisted the turbulent character of the French people as reflected in their revolution as opposed to ours. His regard for the British was because their government combined freedom and security. And to him security, considering the irregular nature of his birth and upbringing, was of foremost concern. That was the source and limit of his pro-British feelings.

“Well he did not like John Adams which helped get Jefferson elected.” That is certainly true but it was not a public opposition. Burr had a private letter filched from the mails and had it printed in the papers. It was very careless of H to allow Burr to do this since he knew exactly what Burr was.

“...but his insistence that the common man was incapable of self-rule was arrogant.” This is not true he was always a republican and proposed and supported the idea of having the widest electorate elect the House of Representatives. He did not believe democracy could survive the masses and that appears to have been borne out by our recent experience.

As to his “arrogance” he was not a man who suffered fools easily but when some one became his friend he generally remained one for the rest of his life. He was extremely charming, handsome, generous and persuasive as well. No one communicated directly with the public than did Hamilton who frequently represented poor clients for no fee including escaped slaves. But lets be real who would be more arrogant than the Virginian planters?

The “Gazette” was not Hamilton’s paper though he wrote for it. His writings were not full of the faults you cite. However, all the papers of that day were but they all acknowledged their political bias.

His policies were intended to create wealth (and they did) and to make sure our nation survived (and it did) nothing more. His bitter experience at Valley Forge taught him a very valuable lesson that a government without revenue is contemptible and worse than useless. Because the state governments were stronger than the General government we were on the edge of defeat throughout the War, thus he recognized, while still Washington’s chief aide, that strengthening the National government was critical to our survival, not because of a love of government but because of the demands of sovereignty.

“All of the founders had their human limitations.” Indeed, they did. And they were all born into situations which circumscribed their thoughts and actions.

I loved the “John Adams” miniseries on HBO. His jealousies and suspicions weakened him a lot. I wonder what he would have been without Abigail, though.

Paine had an alcohol problem which eventually ruined him.

I will keep my eye out for that book. I have a couple of less than satisfactory bio of Madison but they don’t get into much detail.

What a guy like Robert Morris? Absolutely critical in the financing of the Revolution yet winds up in a debtors prison. How is that for irony?

Where did I say Hamilton was anti-French? You are drifting from the original discussion. These instances are "cute" but hardly poignant to the topic at hand. Washington, along with the majority of Federalists in his cabinet as well as Congress appeased the British in order to prevent conflict at home and the Caribbean. Washington failed to kick out the British troops on the frontier (Even though they were required to leave) which got more complicated after the Jay Treaty passed. Provisions during the formation of the treaty required the British to leave their outpost on the frontier by 1796. They stayed until the Treaty of Ghent was ratified by the British in 1814.

One bonus of the French Revolution was the debts to the monarchy vanished. About the Proclamation of Neutrality, Jefferson tried to scam money of the endeavor, keep it "on the down low" and change the wording, big deal. Also, imagine a Congress that controlled foreign policy at a greater degree? A lot less involvement and a lot more resources secured. Yet Hamilton of course encouraged the President take a more active role. I guess those who think a President should be like a King would be on Hamilton's side anyways.

Madison should of told Jefferson to bugger off but he did it anyways. Hamilton had some good points (In relation to France declaring war for starters) as well as Madison (On stemming Presidential power). A side point merely, the perpetual debt Hamilton proposed, thus lining the pockets of creditors vs. Jefferson, self-government, that is the point of Federalist vs. Democrat-Republican politics. Both hypocrites but we are talking direction, not infallible humans.

“Where did I say Hamilton was anti-French?” You didn’t I was only giving a little background on him.

“Washington failed to kick out the British troops on the frontier (Even though they were required to leave) which got more complicated after the Jay Treaty passed.” We had no means of doing so, our army dissolved after the war and was hapless until Mad Anthony Wayne took command after a disastrous defeat by the Indians in the West. We were in no condition financially to fight another war. We had to grin and bear it for a while as we did the seizures of ships by both the British and the French. Had we the wherewithal we could have gone to war with either nation.

H didn’t think the President should be like a King he merely pointed out the a president served the same kind of role AS a King in many respects.

“Perpetual” debt I don’t see as a Hamiltonian idea just securing the availability of debt if needed by careful and prudent handling of our debt. None of the debts created by his reform were perpetual unlike the English consols. Maybe you can elaborate what you are referring to?

“The “Gazette” was not Hamilton’s paper though he wrote for it.”

“Hamilton's paper” as in his method of public attack and Jefferson's paper “National Gazette” like wise. An expression, not everything is “literal” though he did help with “expenses” from time to time.

Also, in terms of direction, Hamilton policies produced debt. Debt and creditors evolve into monsters, monsters have no national loyalties, only to themselves and their vast wealth influences government policy. You mention Valley Forge I will mention the Bank of Britain's influence on government and destruction of democracy which Jefferson alluded to. With big government and big business, you get K Street pimps and statesmen who turn into whores. That is the legacy of Hamilton's vision.

“Hamilton policies produced debt.” That isn’t true, Hamilton came on the scene with the debt already there. He just decided it would be best for the nation if it stood by the obligation it already had undertaken rather than repudiate it and ruin our reputation. Honor was a watchword with Hamilton personally and as a nation.

Jefferson was wrong about almost everything he fought Hamilton over (which was why he lost all direct battles with H) and the Bank of England was one of those things. J hated Banks because they basically owned him and he refused to reduce his extravagant life style to get out of debt.

England did not lose its freedom to the Bank of England but quite the contrary, as H found out to his mortification, since it allowed the financing of the War against us then later against Napoleon. That revolutionary war experience provided the education H needed to recognize the value of a national bank in providing the means to security and to grow an economy.

“There was no federal army available.”

That was Madison role to conjure up (Good thing the French Rev. happened thus unleashing Napoleon). Did not the Constitution lay out a mechanism for defense? The Federalists were too scared of Britain that they signed one-sided treaties. Good God man, think of all those US sailors being gobbled up by the British, yet the Feds allowed that. Anyway, just another clean-up job by the Democrat-Republicans left by the Federalist.

I take it you love this strong central government with the $14,000,000,000,000 debt along with trillions more in “promises”.

If the Federalist were so “right” and true, why did they disintegrate so easily after 1800? Unfortunately their spirit still lives in the policies of democrats and moderate Republicans, implied powers included (Although Jefferson “purchase” became one). Thank God for the election of 1800, we were headed for a tyrannical mess if Adams won again.

Jeffersonians consistently sought to reduce the military. At one point J wanted to get rid of the Navy altogether and replace it with coastal sailing gunboats. He wanted to get rid of our merchant marine as well since trading vessels provoked war in his view.

Federalists had nothing to oppose the British with in the early 1790s. Not that many Americans were seized and many of those who were actually were British subjects in some cases Royal Navy deserters. Republicans had reduced the naval buildup that produced “Old Ironsides” by cutting the appropriation that was to fund it in half.

Far more ships were seized by the French in any case. Somehow the Republican (highly selective) outrage over seizures did not extent to the French depredations.

Americans showed that they were susceptible in 1800 to the Democrat lies and tricks and they have remained so ever since. That is a major reason why we have a huge government.

Our government under Washington and Adams (basically Hamilton’s policies until the last year of Adams) was fantastically successful and had put our nation on the road to success. But democracies are notoriously incapable of recognizing their best interests and ours is no different. They are readily stampeded into stupidity.

As I have stated Jefferson’s persecution of Burr was FAR more “tyrannical” that anything Adams would have ever considered. While it could not have happened to a better guy, the Burr Treason Trials were tyranny of the worst sort.

“That was Madison role to conjure up (Good thing the French Rev. happened thus unleashing Napoleon).”

No idea what this is intended to mean. Madison never “conjured” up an army. We won the War of 1812 despite the Republicans earlier efforts to destroy the Navy and because Jackson’s militia beat the Brits at New Orleans. Our army so so weak otherwise that it only took 5,000 from the British Army to burn our new capital. So much for the idea that we had the power to kick them out of the western forts twenty years earlier.

So Washington/Adams never had an army to kick out the British but Jefferson demolished an army that wasn't there to kick out the British in the first place? Convoluted to say the least.

Jefferson was not big on providing for a standing army. With debt racked up as well as outlets for decreasing the debt insolvent, Jefferson cut the military, so what. You omit what else Jefferson cut because that does not fit in well with your pro-Statist argument and implied powers heroes. What else did Jefferson cut? You should know that. At this very moment we should be emulating Jefferson's cuts (Hint, a lot of fat from the Federal government, not just the military mind you if you were honest).

"Not that many Americans were seized and many of those who were actually were British subjects in some cases Royal Navy deserters."

Lol! The British Provision orders led to the capture of hundreds of private UNITED STATES merchants, ships and their cargo. Grain merchants sailing to French, United States trade ships in the Caribbean, hmm, most were commissioned and operated by Royal Navy deserters? LOL! The Americans were either forced into service or jailed under harsh conditions and cargo looted.

The Rule of 1756 did not apply to United States vessels, yet Britain ran wild. One example was the hijacking of Captain David Ross', ship Ross was a former lieutenant in the CONTINENTAL navy.

When the HOR declared war in 1812 the US government had to "conjure" up the army under the executive direction of President Madison. The army at the time was small which is why Britain gained the upper hand, but Napoleon created too much havoc in Europe to sustain British advances. Thus, the government had time to "conjure" up an army to provide enough deterrence to force a treaty.

Washington built an army to fight during the Revolution and it held together until the war was won. Adams, like Jefferson, had little or nothing to do with the military.

It isn’t convoluted at all. By the end of the War the Army had disappeared because it was not getting paid and the task was essentially done. Jefferson’s followers during the 1790s persistently insisted on refusing any but minimal funds for the army and navy. This was the period when there was only a tiny army of insufficient size and ability to throw the Brits out of the forts.

There was very little “fat” for Jefferson to cut when president so it was mainly the military which was cut. This was during a period of intense international danger so it was extremely imprudent and we paid the price later when we needed a military.

The government in 1800 was TINY and taxes minimal. Jefferson’s savings rapidly disappeared when the War of 1812 was declared, they probably cost us MORE than would have been the case had the military been properly funded. Do you think the British were blind to our refusal to build sufficient military strength to defend our interests? Or the French?

I acknowledged the British seizures of ships but the fact remains that there were few true Americans impressed. Life in the Royal Navy was a miserable existence for the seaman so desertion to higher-paying and less brutal conditions on American ships was common.

Don’t distort what I said, “most” of the American ships were neither commissioned or manned by British deserters. Nothing I said even implies that was the case.

But the real point is that because of the Jeffersonians refusal to build the military’s strength we could do nothing about the British seizures or the French. The best he could come up with was to destroy the economy by stopping foreign trade thereby plunging the nation into a deep Depression. This alone wiped out government revenues (almost totally dependent upon tariffs) and forced a round of deficit spending unlike any seen before.

When it came time to fight the Brits again, it became increasingly difficult to finance it because the Republicans refused to recharter the Bank of the United States showing once again how wrong Jefferson was about its necessity. Government finances got so bad that his followers and acolytes had to bite the bullet and recharter it.

"The central bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the Principles and form of our Constitution. I am an Enemy to all banks discounting bills or notes for anything but Coin. If the American People allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the People of all their Property until their Children will wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered." T.J.

Evidently the Statist in you does not realize the havoc central banks did in England and in the various forms that arose in the United States. How many useless wars have been funded by a central bank throughout the centuries? The lower classes were rightfully used by those who profited off an elitist system. From Nobels to the Wall Street whores that had their losses socialized, all it becomes is a corrupt mess.

The democrat Statist are whores of the central bank and have various orgasms when thinking about the adjusting the progressive income tax/taxes in general to control behavior and "the game". Thomas Jefferson founded the ideology of that Party? As President he abolished direct taxes on the individual yet he is one of the founders of the modern day democrat party?

Why did the charters get revoked? You confuse acting against corruption with "class envy" and fighting the "elitistism" of a heavily gamed system.

Anyone taking Thomas Jefferson’s version of almost any economic or financial theory will lead to disaster. He knew only slightly more than Obama.

Of course, in the real world the establishment of the National Bank, thanks to the efforts of the real financial genius of that era, Alexander Hamilton, produced rapid growth in the American economy, an explosive growth which was only derailed by Jefferson’s embargo and the refusal to recharter the National Bank under Madison. The ensuing depression forced Congress to recharter the bank which again led a massive growth until derailed by Andrew Jackson producing the worst depression prior to the 30s.

Jefferson is rightly regarded as the founder of the Democrat party. He was as much a phony as any modern democrat and campaigned on lies and class warfare just as they do. Liberty to him was just a word to get votes as his personal life showed.

Jefferson is easily the most overrated president we ever had. His administration was a disaster which had two high points: the Lewis and Clark expedition and Louisiana. Louisiana was basically thrown into his lap. Napoleon, having lost an army in Haiti intended to invade Louisiana, figured it was better have the US fight Britain for it rather than France. Jefferson had not only authorized only to buy New Orleans but did not believe the constitution even allowed the purchase. His constitutional understanding was as weak as his economics and finance.

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.