Posted on 05/28/2012 3:36:36 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
How many things are in a person's pocket that they don't even know about?
We take money for granted -- most people can't tell us which way George Washington is facing on the quarter. They can tell us that Ben Franklin is on the front of the hundred, but they can't tell us that Independence Hall (where he helped draft the Constitution) is on the back.
One might think that as denominations get smaller and more common, the pictures on them would become more famous and well-known. The ten-dollar bill features Alexander Hamilton on the front. Since he was never a president himself, one wonders how many Americans could explain how he got on the note. A hint is on the back, where there is a picture of the U.S. Treasury. In short, Alexander Hamilton was the first secretary of the Treasury.
But it was how he handled that position that garnered him immortality on our money.
A lot of people living in the United States in 1790 believed (as a lot of people do today) that the debts incurred during the American Revolution should just be ignored. What modern people would think of as the United States didn't begin until 1789. The debts run up before that time were under a different government, so why should the new government be responsible for that debt?
Alexander Hamilton argued against this.
He believed that the new nation needed a good reputation on the international scene. If the United States was known to honor its debts, it would find it easier to get loans. Hamilton pointed out that this would be especially useful in a national emergency. Moreover, Hamilton wanted the federal government to take up all the state debt as well.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Hamilton was right to dismiss the arguments of the anti-federalists, because there was one big check on federal power: The State-Appointed Senators.
Once the 17th Amendment fell upon the United States, the fuse was lit for an explosive government.
Hamilton did warn us of another problem in Washington’s Farewell Address when he wrote about improper changes of law. He saw that possibility, but not the change in the Senate.
Now you can feel better about Hamilton.
Over the years, I have lost some respect for Jefferson.
His actions in both of Washington’s administrations, from a viewpoint of loyalty and respect to George Washington (which should have been unquestioned) paint him in a less than positive light. Jefferson had been spreading rumors behind the scenes that Washington was a feeble, doddering old man who was making decisions based on the whispers in his ear from people like Hamilton, whom he detested.
For his own personal reasons, he was undermining the legitimacy of the very administration he was a member of.
Washington found out via an unimpeachable source that Jefferson was behind some of that, and confronted him directly and personally with that information. After that, their relationship in private was non-existent, and in public, was limited to polite exchanges.
His admiration and support for the French Revolution was disturbing to me as well, as he had plenty of knowledgable people telling him exactly what was going on over there, yet he persisted.
All in all, I do (to an extent) view Jefferson as the forefather of today’s Democrats, though their desire to destroy this country and mold it in their model sets them far, far apart from him.
All that said, it is hard not to admire Jefferson for his impressive intellect and written communication skills. He was remarkable in that respect.
I agree with your assessment of the 17th Amendment. I think the damage that has done (in its erosion of state’s rights) is completely and totally unrecognized by political commentators specifically, and by the electorate in general.
If it's assumed by the fed, and therefore effectively by all of us, they won't see that they're any worse off than responsible people who live in free states. In fact, the clever ones would realize they got the "bennies"to themselves but we all split the tab, so they actually fared better for having selected communism.
Thanks for the ping.
Interesting indeed...
5.56mm
Once the 17th Amendment fell upon the United States, the fuse was lit for an explosive government.
That is a good point, but I would also point out that by the time the 17th amendment was passed, the worst damage had already been done.
The Civil war was the most massive expansion of Federal Power in our History. The Federal government became this dominating leviathan that no longer recognized any check on it's will. Before the 17th amendment was passed, the Federals basically ordered the State Governments of the occupied Southern States to pass the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, or face continued Occupation.
That such a thing was done under duress could hardly make them legitimate acts of free will, but this was a time when the normal understanding of "Federalism" was displaced by whatever was the desire of the ruling parties. This period set the stage for subsequent abuses of power by Executives such as Woodrow Wilson (3,000 political prisoners) and Franklin D. Roosevelt. (New Deal, Entitlements, etc.)
Hamilton did warn us of another problem in Washington’s Farewell Address when he wrote about improper changes of law. He saw that possibility, but not the change in the Senate.
One of the things I find amusing about this is the fact that Hamilton and his co-writers of the Federalist papers pooh poohed the idea that under Federal control the militias of one states would be used to invade and oppress the others. They said such a thing would never happen under the new Constitution. It had plenty of safeguards to prevent such a thing.
The Civil war would really have come as a shock to them.
Now you can feel better about Hamilton.
I don't dislike the man, he was undoubtedly necessary for getting the Constitution approved, I just wish he had paid more heed to the opposition arguments which turned out to be prophetic.
Exactly right. They need to feel the painful results of their own irresponsibility in order to correct their foolish thinking. It is the only way they can learn better.
No way.
Since you've associated Jefferson with the French Revolution, can you please explain why it is that people who do this seem to NEVER mention Thomas Paine's participation in the "Reign of Terror".
Since you've associated Jefferson with the French Revolution, can you please explain why it is that people who do this seem to NEVER mention Thomas Paine's participation in the "Reign of Terror".
The criticisms I made of "untrammeled capitalism" were intended as a conciliatory statement to PR and his fellow Jeffersonians. Thomas Jefferson and his followers (up to and including the twentieth century Southern Agrarians) were actually quite hostile to capitalism, regarding it as corrosive of tradition and an organic society. Contrary to popular belief, laissez faire was not the brainchild of capitalists, but of anti-capitalist agrarians like Jefferson and Randolph. Capitalists were interventionists from day one. The concept of "laissez faire capitalism" is largely a myth.
By criticizing capitalism I was intending to concede to PeaRidge that Hamilton and his ideas were not perfect (I certainly prefer the countryside to his beloved big cities, though in his day big cities were symbols of religion and civilization rather than of corruption and nihilism). I am sorry that PeaRidge took this conciliatory statement (intended as a critique of Hamilton) and turned it into something else.
As for Marxist rhetoric, what about all the anti-banker, anti-financier rhetoric that comes from Jeffersonianism (as well as less respectable voices such as Nazis)? Is this not an example of "class warfare?" What is the difference between such rhetoric and that of Father Coughlin, who advocated nationalization of the banks and of major industries during the Great Depression (and who is considered a "hero" to many on the "right" because of his hostility toward Jews)? I'm sorry. Jeffersonianism's rabid hostility to such people combines elements of both Nazism and Marxism (though please note I am not accusing Jefferson of either). And no matter how many times the claim is made, the Federal Reserve is not Hamilton's Bank.
Finally, as I keep saying, the attacks on "aristocracy" from landed gentry who inherited semi-feudal estates rings hollow, though certainly Jacobin agents at the time picked up on this rhetoric and tried to exploit it.
I do not claim that Hamilton's interpretation is the "one true authentic" interpretation of the Constitution. But I also insist that neither is Jefferson's, despite the fact that so many on the Right seem to think that it is.
Thomas Jefferson was a great man but he wasn't perfect. He was a notorious freethinker who frightened the religious people of his day and sympathized with the French Revolution. Alexander Hamilton certainly was not perfect either, but he was not a Marxist, Communist, statist, or father of the New Deal as so many Jeffersonians make him out to be. He was, along with Jefferson and the others, one of the founders of this country and his thought is as much a part of our patrimony as that of his political opponents.
Thomas Paine is not someone I admire, with one significant exception: his authorship of “Common Sense”. I am grateful to Thomas Paine for his role in the American Revolution in creating that work, because it was a galvanizing document that played a critical role at a critical time.
Other than that, I find little of redeeming value in him. Not my type of guy. Sounds like a Marxist liberal dirtbag, to be frank.
But, it is also true, I might consider my life worthwhile if I did nothing else but create a work like “Common Sense” that contributed to as worthy a cause as his work did.
I have to give him that, in fairness.
Then #132 went up and I am wondering if you are now laughing or rereading the phrases that included the term Nazi.
I knew the Nazi comparisons and marxist misrepresentations of free enterprise were lurking and waiting for an opportunity to be expressed, but it came as a surprise how quickly these mischaracterizations popped out of this other poster's psyche.
I think that your assertion of tea party advocacy is certainly a stretch, but that is a subject for another thread.
The essential point you were addressing is the role of government in business, and the Constitution speaks well on its own regarding this matter, and does not need interpretation.
Thomas Jefferson, designated writer of the first draft of the Declaration, inserted clauses condemning the Crown for forcing the growth of the slave trade, and calling for a formal cessation of the trade itself. He was making the statement that one of the issues prompting the separation of the colonies was the ongoing British government's efforts to thwart or reverse efforts in the colonies to exit the slave trade.
It is thus documented fact that Jefferson authored the first formal protestation against slavery in the written records of this country's foundation.
Although some of the signers were active in anti-slavery efforts on the local levels, no other member of the 56 signers had a record of opposition to the slave question at the proceedings.
Beginning with John Adams and Benjamin Franklin (slave owner), two of the most well known of the ‘subcommittee” that would submit the first draft, they did not object nor did the others of the committee, Livingston of New York and Sherman of Connecticut, so it passed on to the delegates as a whole.
It is a fact that Jefferson's clauses did not pass delegate approval, and therefore it must be said that Jefferson's effort to extinguish the slave trade was rebuked by the delegates. Aside from giving a "I have a dream" speech, I am not sure what option Jefferson had to advance the issue in that setting
Some of the delegates from Georgia and South Carolina were opposed to any slave trade reduction, and according to Jefferson's notes and the comments of others, there were the same objections from some Northern state delegates who did not want the trade interrupted.
Clearly Thomas Jefferson was the single, outspoken advocate of the elimination of the slave trade, when others would not risk taking that position.
Prime examples of this reticence were John Adams who wanted the issue to "remain asleep" (despite your attempted explanations without sourcing); Livingston; the orator of record, Franklin, who would not support Jefferson; John Hancock (slave owner) of Massachusetts, who would not offer support; and John Jay, (slave owner) who later came to Jefferson's opinion on the issue.
PeaRidge, I honestly don’t understand what you are driving at with your post at #133 in which you respond to my puzzlement to your lack of respect to another freezer in post #104.
I was referring directly to your post at #104 in which you responded to Zionist Conspirator’s post at #102, which in turn referenced post #40.
I do not read every post in a thread exhaustively, and I readily admitted to myself that I might have missed an earlier reference that was relevant to the tone of your post to Zionist Conspirator at post #104. With that said, I went back and re-read your posts and Zionist Conspirator’s post to ensure I understood the thread past that point.
I am referencing your direct response to Zionist Conspirator in which you dismiss any intellectual weight of his post by characterizing that post as “...wonderful satire...”.
That was done disrespectfully, and it was meant disrespectfully, as is your post to me that I am currently responding to. I re-read the entire thread as well as your posts to ensure I was not mistaken, since it is easy to make mistakes in long, freewheeling discussions.
Your reference to marxism and naziism in posts occurred AFTER your post that caught my attention at #104. It was dismissive and disrespectful at #104, it was your first response to a freeper whose first post on this thread was relevant, well mannered and respectful to people.
In summary, I was not correcting a “perception” of “a post that did not receive some measure of respect”.
I am not mistaken. It DIDN’T receive any “measure of respect”.
You sound well educated and well spoken. We who might disagree with you could learn from you (because, after all, isn’t that one of the best aspects of Free Republic?) but, as I said, you do yourself a disservice by taking the approach you did.
"...As for Marxist rhetoric, what about all the anti-banker, anti-financier rhetoric that comes from Jeffersonianism (as well as less respectable voices such as Nazis)? Is this not an example of "class warfare?" What is the difference between such rhetoric and that of Father Coughlin, who advocated nationalization of the banks and of major industries during the Great Depression (and who is considered a "hero" to many on the "right" because of his hostility toward Jews)? I'm sorry. Jeffersonianism's rabid hostility to such people combines elements of both Nazism and Marxism (though please note I am not accusing Jefferson of either). And no matter how many times the claim is made, the Federal Reserve is not Hamilton's Bank..."
I thought it was a well constructed statement to back up his assertion. It was respectful and addressed aspects of the issues under discussion.
You may rightfully disagree with his statement, but you would be better served to deconstruct it for the benefit of other readers than to dismissively characterize it as "Nazi comparisons and marxist misrepresentations of free enterprise".
We might all actually learn something from it.
_____________
First Formal Protest Against Slavery February 18, 1688 - First formal protest against slavery by organized white body in English America made by Germantown (Pa.) Quakers at monthly meeting. The historic "Germantown Protest" denounced slavery and the slave trade.
Quakers and Mennonites went on to protest again and again, and Quaker assemblies forbade their member's owning slaves. Some provinces passed laws against the slave trade, though somehow they didn't really stick. Slaves petitioned the Massachusetts legislature themselves in 1773 for their freedom. The first abolitionist society was formed in Philadelphia in 1775. And Lord Dunmore proclaimed that any slave who would fight for the king would be freed. Clearly, there was resistance and protest before Jefferson showed up.
Also, he wasn't actually protesting against slavery was he? He blamed the king for the slave trade and slavery, but excoriated George III for offering slaves their freedom -- not something one would expect from a true opponent of slavery. And in the end, his protest wasn't actually part of the official written records of the country's foundation, was it?
He was making the statement that one of the issues prompting the separation of the colonies was the ongoing British government's efforts to thwart or reverse efforts in the colonies to exit the slave trade.
But of course, it wasn't, was it? Some provinces had indeed banned the slave trade as part of the policy of not buying from Britain, but I don't see any evidence that Britain or her king tried to "thwart" or "reverse" these efforts. Those provinces did that on their own after becoming states.
Clearly Thomas Jefferson was the single, outspoken advocate of the elimination of the slave trade, when others would not risk taking that position.
Outspoken? How? The timid Jefferson chose not to fight on this issue. We don't exactly know if the others did or what they did, but Jefferson, who was too timid to speak before Congress after he became President, didn't defend his words.
And, as people have pointed out to you already, the Declaration wouldn't in itself have forbidden slavery or the slave trade. I give Jefferson some credit for his protestation, but it doesn't wipe away his later stand on slavery, and I don't see any reason to demean other founders to make Jefferson shine brighter.
Yes, it is Publius. Fascinating and educational. Read it all BUMP! Thanks for the ping.
Correct. And I have no intention of paying to clean up the failure of a system I don't believe in and could have selected but chose not to. That's collectivism (redistributing the failure of, well, other collectivism) and it's wrong, both morally and as a practical matter.
Clearly history does not agree with your hagiographic assessment or history would be more pronounced in their regard for Jefferson's attitudes towards The Particular Institution. As it is, historic references to Jefferson's regard for blacks in general or slaves in particular was that "his views on slavery appeared to change throughout his life".
I thought it interesting that your reference to Franklin was "Benjamin Franklin (slave owner)". This reveals much about your bias since while it is true that Franklin was a slave-owner (two slaves) it doesn't commonly come up in descriptions of him like it does Jefferson. You do recognize a difference between 2 slaves and hundreds of slaves, right?
Sorry but your glowing appraisal of Jefferson's enlightened attitudes towards race relations doesn't pass the sniff test. But It's OK - he was still a cool dude.
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.