Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: x
I read the article you linked to the other day about Madison. Based on what I know, Madison is not fully appreciated or understood. For me, he is the authoritative expert on our system of government. I don't mean that in the usual blase manner (Madison's the father of the Constitution, yadda yadda). I mean there is no one else who was involved in the period who explained the system as thoroughly, as consistently, and as fairly as Madison did. If there is anyone else, someone let me know.

Incidentally, if the Federalist party went extinct after its dumb flirtation with secesion doctrine, and if the Democrat-Republicans of Jefferson and Madison became Jacksonian Democrats, who spawned John C. Calhoun? Or did he spawn himself? As I recall, Georgia and South Carolina were the fire eaters at the Constitutional Convention. I don't recall who the delgates were, but perhaps they are the orginators of Calhounism, and subsequently, DiLorenzoism. Any thoughts?

43 posted on 05/25/2002 6:37:38 PM PDT by Huck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies ]


To: Huck
I don't know the details about the Hartford Convention and how serious the Federalists were about secession in 1814 and earlier, but you're right that the dalliance with disunion killed off the party. They weren't able to overcome the bad publicity in the way that Jefferson overcame his identification with the French Revolution.

The Federalists, though, were already on the skids when the War of 1812 started. Perhaps at some point they figured they would never win the Presidency again, and fell back on just being the voice of New England, so secession followed as a consequence of the abandonment of the Middle States to the Democratic-Republicans. Our system works best when parties compete in all regions of the country, but it's always turned out that party divisions tended to reflect regional fissures.

Calhoun was actually a fiery War Hawk and young nationalist in 1812. His transformation is another topic that could be examined more closely. I suspect that he was so nationalistic because he came from the upcountry, where settlement had been comparatively recent and identification with new states like Tennessee and Kentucky was strong. As the frontier moved West and memories of frontier days and wild Scots Irishmen faded and plantation culture grew stronger, it was natural that the men of central South Carolina would look more to Charleston and less to the West. There must have been some pan-Western feeling that tied those who lived beyond the Eastern seaboard together in the early years of the republic. As settlement grew thicker, the differences between North and South increased.

I don't know the details about the Convention, but as I recall, South Carolina and Georgia were always the "odd men out." Virginia acted as mediator between them and the other states to hold the compromises over slavery together. I don't think it was that SC and GA had a highly developed state's rights ideology -- there were some people in many states who did -- but they did want to ensure that the Federal government would do as little as possible about internal matters like slavery. Supposedly, Charleston had close ties to the West Indies, and thus was always a little out of step with the rest of the country.

Madison's records of the Conventions debates are on the web -- http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/debates/debcont.htm http://www.constitution.org/dfc/dfc_0000.htm -- but it can be hard to get into the transcript format.

46 posted on 05/25/2002 7:20:03 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson