Skip to comments.
Republican History Revealed
Posted on 07/23/2003 10:03:09 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 741-760, 761-780, 781-800 ... 821-836 next last
To: thatdewd
1) Nationalist is NOT a "consolidationist" no matter what YOU think. Consolidationist was merely a term of opprobrium thrown around by lunatics it meant nothing.
2) I never claimed nationalism was abolitionism. Though it is perhaps too subtle for you, I mentioned how far Jefferson was willing to go to cement the Nation over the "rights" of states to protect slavery during his nationalist phase in the 1780s.
Like most things this last point requires a degree of thought which is beyond your capacity to do more than respond in a knee-jerk fashion.
Hamilton was practically Washington's second brain. He was respected and loved by Washington as no other man, much to the dismay and disgust of Jeffersonians. While Washington's chief aide during the Revolution Hamilton was trusted to decide weighty matters on the spot without consultation with the Commander because of the great trust in his judgment. During the administrations no man's opinion stood higher with Washington than Hamilton's and the number of instances where W didn't follow it are extremely small, perhaps you would like to provide some evidence refuting that statement. Hamilton even wrote "Washington's Farewell Address", a dire warning of the evils of secession.
Washington even put up with antics from Hamilton he would take from no other man. Only Lafayette compared with Hamilton in Washington's love, esteem and respect. Anyone who knows anything of either man knows that.
761
posted on
09/04/2003 6:40:43 AM PDT
by
justshutupandtakeit
(America's Enemies foreign and domestic agree. Bush must be destroyed.)
To: thatdewd
Once again you cannot distinguish between a negoitiating stance and a belief. Hamilton never seriously advocated getting rid of states, he well understood their importance as administrative units in a federal Union.
Madison NEVER considered the federal Union as "the States' agent" and carefully constructed the constitution to prevent that from ever happening. That is why state legislatures were not allowed to ratify the Constitution which WAS/IS the agent of the American People. While the powers granted the Union are limited they are still vast and the constitution was designed to limit the powers of the STATES primarily by increasing the powers of the federal government. WHY ELSE WOULD THE ANTIS OPPOSE IT?
Inability to understand negoitiating and compromising prevents you from understanding what happened at the convention. Hopefully, you won't have to negoitiate anything with one knowledgeable in such things or you will be left standing saying "How did I lose my pants?"
762
posted on
09/04/2003 6:49:35 AM PDT
by
justshutupandtakeit
(America's Enemies foreign and domestic agree. Bush must be destroyed.)
To: justshutupandtakeit
Nationalist is NOT a "consolidationist" no matter what YOU think.(yawn) I made it clear many many posts ago what I meant by the term, and what my useage of it was. Since you're ranting falsehoods have been disproven over and over, you now have nothing to fall back on except word games. Typical.
(hyperboles ad nauseum)...Hamilton even wrote "Washington's Farewell Address", a dire warning of the evils of secession.
BS. Another falsehood of Hamiltonian zealots. James Madison wrote the farewell address for Washington at the end of his first term, before he agreed to a second. After the second term ended, Washington asked Hamilton to look it over and update it (since by this time Madison had drifted apart somewhat from Washington due to Hamilton's game-playing). Hamilton did, after which Washington revised many of Hamilton's revisions. I bet you didn't even know that. Hamiltonian authors always leave out little "details" like that.
Only Lafayette compared with Hamilton in Washington's love, esteem and respect. Anyone who knows anything of either man knows that.
You mean anyone who has read the same slanted books as you knows that. James Madison was way ahead of Hamilton in the 'love' department until just the last few years.
To: thatdewd
Who cares what YOU mean by a term. Words have common meanings, those are the ones I am concerned about not some cockamayme bs from you.
Madison's draft of the FA was junked by Hamilton. Washington had little use for the author after he and Jefferson went on a sabotage course against the Washington Administration. All experts on the matter (something foreign to you no doubt) agree that the Address is the work of Hamilton with a little tinkering by George. Of course, I am well aware of all the expert discussion of the address's origins and the passing back and forth between H and W.
The entire thrust of the document was changed from Madison's and the warnings against foreign entanglements are directed pointed at the Madison/Jefferson alignment with France. They are also TOTALLY in accord with Hamilton's views of foreign policy. Washington did tone that part down a bit as H had made the connection more explicit.
It is false that W and H had "drifted apart" nothing could be further from the truth particularly that such a thing would have come over policy differences. STILL WAITING for the evidence of such a split or differences between the two men. That LIE is easily shown to be so by the FACT that when W was asked to take over the Army again under the Adams' administration's "phoney war" against France, he refused to do so UNLESS H was made second in command. This was something Adams was desperate to avoid but it was forced down his throat by W.
The only "apartness" between the two was that H had left the government. Another proof of the stupidity of your comment is the FACT that W wanted to appoint H to be Chief Justice but H couldn't afford to take the post. Do you just make up stuff out of thin air or is there some deluded quack you depend on for it?
764
posted on
09/04/2003 8:47:43 AM PDT
by
justshutupandtakeit
(America's Enemies foreign and domestic agree. Bush must be destroyed.)
To: justshutupandtakeit
Hamilton never seriously advocated getting rid of states, he well understood their importance as administrative units in a federal Union.In Hamilton's original idea of a consolidated national government the States would have been nothing more than administrative regions, not sovereign States that were members of a Federal compact. After 'nationalist' or 'consolidationist' plans like his were rejected, he supported the 'Federal' plan. But you already know this, it's been posted to you complete with hamilton's own explanations many times.
Madison NEVER considered the federal Union as "the States' agent" and carefully constructed the constitution to prevent that from ever happening...
LOL. With all due respect, you're becoming a caricature of your own caricature as you go in circles with your rant.
That is why state legislatures were not allowed to ratify the Constitution which WAS/IS the agent of the American People.
The legislatures were not to be the ratifiers because that would have made ratification a legislative decision. Here is what Madison said regarding the process of ratification:
"It must result from the unanimous assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no other wise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves." - James Madison, Federalist Papers # 39
That's why conventions were called and delegates chosen for the purpose.
While the powers granted the Union are limited they are still vast and the constitution was designed to limit the powers of the STATES primarily by increasing the powers of the federal government.
The federal government ONLY had power in regards to the few powers that were granted to it in limited areas. It was not to act outside those areas.
WHY ELSE WOULD THE ANTIS OPPOSE IT?
If you'd bother to read the essays you wouldn't have to ask that question, nor would you repeatedly display such a shocking lack of knowledge regarding Constitutional principles and the Founding Fathers. To answer your question, some of them didn't really want a central government of any kind, and some of them were afraid that if even a small and limited one were created, deceitful and evil men would miscontrue it until it grew into a leviathon of empirical oppression.
Inability to understand negoitiating and compromising prevents you from understanding what happened at the convention.
LOL. I really don't think you should be the one to discuss anyone else's lack of understanding regarding the convention. This thread is a testimony to your ignorance.
Hopefully, you won't have to negoitiate anything with one knowledgeable in such things or you will be left standing saying "How did I lose my pants?"
I seem to have an extra pair here...I wonder who's they were...
To: justshutupandtakeit
Who cares what YOU mean by a term. Words have common meanings, those are the ones I am concerned about not some cockamayme bs from you.LOL, you knew what I meant by the term, you just have no recourse now but to dance in circles with your word games, pants-less I might add.
Washington had little use for the author [Madison] after he and Jefferson went on a sabotage course against the Washington Administration.
LOL, I just love it when you snap and spew crap like that...
...I know you don't really care, but I will respond to the rest of your inane blathering in a few days. Right now I have to go catch a plane and will be 'out of pocket' until Monday.
To: thatdewd
This thread is a testimony to your ignorance. ROTFLMAO! How true! (Although it could also be a testimony to our friend's willful, pig-headed, historical-revisionist blindness - as your 'Black Knight' post suggested... ;>)
To: thatdewd
As you may be aware there are no written proposals by Hamilton proposing such a thing in all the 10s of thousands of pages of his writing. His comments at the Convention were meant to drive as far as possible the delegates to accept a stronger government. Thus, such proposals are similiar to the initial proposal of a labor negoitator demanding a $10 per hour increase when he knows that if he gets $5 it will be good. This really is not difficult to understand but those who want to try and smear Hamilton pretend an ignorance of such realities.
It is no secret why the State legislatures were NOT allowed to ratify the Constitution. They would have been had the idea been that the new federal Union was merely a creature of the states. Of course, the constitutional supremacy of the federal government in conflicts with the states amply proves states were not even equals with the federal government much less superior.
Yes, that is what I have been saying the authority was "from the People themselves." Glad you admit it.
It is true that the powers of the fedgov are limited however they are extensive and vast when properly considered. Even Jefferson admitted there were implied powers. Powers without which the gov could not work. It is the means to exercising the enumerated powers which produces the conflict over whether the authority to do certain things is there. However, Hamilton explained what was constitutional and what not in his essay discussing the constitutionality of the National Bank. After that there is little to be said and Marshall properly used it as the basis for major rulings which drove Jefferson nuts.
Yes, the antis were opposed to strengthening a central government that is what I have said. Most of the Anti-federalist papers are just gibberish and clearly illustrate the second rate mentality of their writers compared with Hamilton, Madison and Jay.
That extra pair of pants may be Jefferson's since he claimed Hamilton conned him wrt to funding the debt perhaps he lost his pants too. Are they knee length?
768
posted on
09/05/2003 11:10:01 AM PDT
by
justshutupandtakeit
(America's Enemies foreign and domestic agree. Bush must be destroyed.)
To: thatdewd
Washington lost all regard for Jefferson, so much so that he refused to speak his name or allow it to be spoken in his presence after he left the Presidency. He had a little more respect for Madison but not enough to use his Farewell Address which is clearly directed (if you would care to read it) at the Jefferson/Madison policies.
It is simply a FACT that Washington regarded no man higher than Hamilton. Upon his death Hamilton lamented that Washington had been an "aegis" for him. A shield, a protection. Even as early as 1780 there were those claiming Washington was a captive of his aides (meaning Hamilton.)
769
posted on
09/05/2003 11:15:40 AM PDT
by
justshutupandtakeit
(America's Enemies foreign and domestic agree. Bush must be destroyed.)
To: justshutupandtakeit
Mensa meansa nothing should I wish I could be one too by any standard: IQ, SAT scores, charming demeanor. I'm 3 for 3 ;o)
Hamilton was that brilliant everyone admitted it even those who hated his guts.
I'd agree with that part.
However, he was NOT a monarchist no matter who tells that LIE.
His words say otherwise. I guess he was the liar.
He did believe in a permanent National Interest and hoped that role would be served by the Senate.
I'll give you half credit. He advocated that the President serve for Life after election. Can you imagine X42 serving for another 50 years?
Plus, all debate at the convention was explicitly to be kept secret so ideas presented there could not be used against their expositors.
Which would mean that they could honestly state their opinion, not be a politician and speak with forked tongue.
He changed his mind about the utility of States though never wished them to be too strong.
"He played a surprisingly small part in the debates, apparently because he was frequently absent on legal business, his extreme nationalism put him at odds with most of the delegates, and he was frustrated by the conservative views of his two fellow delegates from New York [John Lansing, Jr and Robert Yates]", and "Hamilton's policies soon brought him into conflict with Jefferson and Madison." National Archives and Records Administration
770
posted on
09/05/2003 8:59:01 PM PDT
by
4CJ
(Come along chihuahua, I want to hear you say yo quiero taco bell. - Nolu Chan, 28 Jul 2003)
To: justshutupandtakeit
It is simply a FACT that Washington regarded no man higher than Hamilton. And that is a load of nonsense. When the entirity of Washington's career is considered, the list of persons that was probably closest to comes down to those who were also essentially his "nextdoor" neighbors. This category would generally include other well known planters such as George Mason, but his friendship with the longest duration on good terms was probably that with his comparatively obscure neighbor Bryan Fairfax.
Fairfax and Washington remained friends for decades. This friendship held firm even under its strongest test - the revolution. Fairfax was a loyalist out of conscience when Washington was leader of the revolutionaries, yet even that did not stop Washington from using his influence to protect Fairfax from persecution by others on the American side. They remained close friends until Washington's death in 1799. Fairfax was by then a clergyman and it was in him that Washington regularly confided his most personal thoughts. A few months before his death he wrote this famous passage in a private letter to Fairfax:
"The favorable sentiments which others, you say, have been pleased to express respecting me, cannot but be pleasing to a mind who always walked on a straight line, and endeavored as far as human frailties, and perhaps strong passions, would enable him, to discharge the relative duties to his Maker and fellow-men, without seeking any indirect or left handed attempts to acquire popularity."
To: justshutupandtakeit
Most of the Anti-federalist papers are just gibberish and clearly illustrate the second rate mentality of their writers compared with Hamilton, Madison and Jay. That too is a falsehood. In their own day Richard Henry Lee's Federal Farmer essays recieved a far wider circulation and following than any of their federalist counterparts. That fact is noted by no less a source than Forrest McDonald, who edited the modern edition of the Federal Farmer essays. Only after the debate did they ever fall into neglect if for no other reason than that they were on the side that was opposite of ratification.
Also among the most far-sighted convention-era writings were the anti-federalist letters entitled Genuine Information by Luther Martin. Martin was one of the most brilliant delegates at the constitutional convention, though also one the most eccentric and inflamatory. The Genuine Information letters are extremely far-sighted in scope - well beyond the Federalist Papers ever went. They include one of the strongest attacks upon slavery of any founding father and theorize about a trend of growth and centralization in the national government. They also foresee, in detail greater than any other writer at the time, the civil war and how it will be played out politically. Martin predicted that a time would come when the national government would become engaged in a great war with some of the member states, during which those states would draw recourse in the sword and the revolution. In one of his letters he proposed a means of mitigating this possibility in the constitution by establishing a legal mechanism by which any conflict would be conducted, then warned that its absence would be nothing less than a bloody mess. Unfortunately his words were not heeded and a bloody mess is exactly what the country got in 1861.
To: 4ConservativeJustices
He played a surprisingly small part in the debates, apparently because he was frequently absent on legal business, his extreme nationalism put him at odds with most of the delegates, and he was frustrated by the conservative views of his two fellow delegates from New York [John Lansing, Jr and Robert Yates]", and "Hamilton's policies soon brought him into conflict with Jefferson and Madison." Yes. Exactly. The New York delegation was constantly divided in the convention and ratification. Hamilton penned several of the now famous federalist essays, but chief among his anti-federalist opponents was his fellow NY delegate Robert Yates, author of the Brutus papers. Yates and the other anti-federalists took a strong states position throughout that debate with Hamilton's significantly more nationalist position countering it.
To: GOPcapitalist
Wide circulation is often nothing more than the appeal to the limited. Bad ideas, bad writings are frequently widely circulated. Nothing surprising about the anti-feds having wide circulations after all they controlled virtually all the State governments and local political machinery. It would be surprising if their ideas were NOT more widely circulated than those attacking the status quo.
If Luther Martin is the best you can come up with then my point is confirmed. Without his largely self-imposed disabilities Martin might well have been a great man but as it was he drank himself into a lesser status. How great a man COULD he have been? And even a GREATER lawyer than he was.
Even when a drunk is dead right he is not taken as seriously as less correct people who are cold sober. Martin, like most drunks, was obnoxious, quarrelsome and insufferable. He was a tragic figure. Wonder what led to that?
774
posted on
09/08/2003 7:16:39 AM PDT
by
justshutupandtakeit
(America's Enemies foreign and domestic agree. Bush must be destroyed.)
To: 4ConservativeJustices
It is a common myth that Hamilton was a monarchist but by any common meaning of the word he was not having agitated and fought against monarchies from as early as 1774. His statements at the CC were meant to drive the debate towards a stronger government, not monarchy. He had no doubt that his ideas would not prevail but used the opportunity to allow compromise with something he might not totally agree with but which he believed was better than nothing. To refuse to acknowledge this obvious fact does nothing to indicate an awareness of the truth.
Nor can you find ANY of his writing advocating monarchy not even those of 1775.
Hamilton was present for much, if not most, of the debates and limited his comments, he said, out of respect and consideration for the older, more experienced leaders. He was the youngest member there. Plus, the fact that Clinton had made sure the NY delegation would vote "NO" compromised Hamilton's actions there as he admitted and made him feel less free to take part. He did, however, play major roles on the committees and undertake lengthy private conversations with the delegates. He was at the convention as much as most and more than many certainly more than his New York counterparts.
His most important role was in pushing for the calling of the convention. That had been a major goal from his earliest days in the Congress.
775
posted on
09/08/2003 7:28:58 AM PDT
by
justshutupandtakeit
(America's Enemies foreign and domestic agree. Bush must be destroyed.)
To: GOPcapitalist
Alexander Hamilton spent more time with Washington than any man I am aware of, certainly more than any other man after 1776 except Billy. They were in constant contact from morning to night almost every day for the entire period Hamilton was his chief aide.
When not in each others' presence after the war, they wrote a huge number of letters. I would doubt if Washington exchanged more letters with any man than Hamilton and vice versa.
Then for the eight years of the Presidency contact was again intense and often personal. Hamilton's opinion was generally the final decision making consideration. It was rarely rejected.
If you are truly unaware of this, you need further study into the lives of each. Mrs. Washington also loved Alexander and he was one of her favorites.
776
posted on
09/08/2003 7:36:46 AM PDT
by
justshutupandtakeit
(America's Enemies foreign and domestic agree. Bush must be destroyed.)
To: GOPcapitalist
New York's delegation was deliberately selected so that it would vote NO. There was never a chance that Clinton's henchmen would do anything else.
Hamilton wrote "several" of the Federalist papers? Try 2/3s.
777
posted on
09/08/2003 7:39:01 AM PDT
by
justshutupandtakeit
(America's Enemies foreign and domestic agree. Bush must be destroyed.)
To: justshutupandtakeit
Alexander Hamilton spent more time with Washington than any man I am aware of, certainly more than any other man after 1776 except Billy. They were in constant contact from morning to night almost every day for the entire period Hamilton was his chief aide. Aside from the periods of his presidency when he was in Washington, there simply is not strong evidence to support that. Washington's most regular contacts were his frequent guests at Mount Vernon. Those were typically his next door neighbors. Up until around 1790 when they had a political fallout that included George Mason. But the longest and most continuous was, as I noted previously, Bryan Fairfax. Fairfax and Washington were close friends and confidants for practically 40 years. They corresponded regularly and visited each other from roughly 1760 to 1799, with the last being only a few days before Washington died. At various points well within this period Washington did have frequent contact and correspondence with Hamilton in a largely political capacity. But that friendship cannot be said to surpass the other in closeness, duration, or continuation under even the most strained loyalties.
I would doubt if Washington exchanged more letters with any man than Hamilton and vice versa.
This is doubtful. A quick search of the Washington papers reveals that the two corresponded regularly from the mid 1760's until Washington's death. The earliest is dated 1754 and the latest only a few days before Washington died. This also includes several dozen letters on average for the later years of his life and maxes out the LOC's search engine, which only pulls up to 100 documents. A search for Hamilton reveals a large number of letters between 1795 and 1799 with several dozen a year, but very little before the mid 1780's and absolutely nothing before a few military correspondences in the revolution. At that time Fairfax and Washington had been writing each other regularly for almost 20 years.
To: justshutupandtakeit
New York's delegation was deliberately selected so that it would vote NO. Well boo hoo hoo then. That still doesn't change Yates' prominent role as an anti-federalist author.
To: Grand Old Partisan
I bought your book through Barnes & Noble. I am very impressed! I learned things I didn't know I needed to know, and I'm a Civil War Buff. Excellent book. I'm recommending it to all my friends and family.
780
posted on
09/08/2003 8:28:01 AM PDT
by
nobdysfool
(All men are born Arminians...the Christian ones that grow up become Calvinists...)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 741-760, 761-780, 781-800 ... 821-836 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson