Posted on 07/23/2003 10:03:09 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit
Yet you have no evidence to qualify Lee's writings as anything of the sort. My point is simply that they were very influential in his own day as one of the greatest contributions to his side of the debate. The only substantial reason they are lesser known than the federalists today is the fact that they took a position that was opposite of what ended up happening.
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.
Actually, the worst of his alcoholism hit him in older age. Though always a friend of the drink, he nevertheless proved his capability as one of the nation's leading legal minds over several decades. His greater "flaw," if you can call it that, was not the drink but rather eccentricity that accompanied what truly was a stroke of genius. Martin was bluntly spoken and had an extremely sharp tongue. It made him great in a courtroom and in print, but highly undiplomatic and abrasive in a congress. The writings of the other convention delegates reflect this sentiment - they practically all appreciated his brilliance and were also generally respectful of his contributions on the part of the states in committee negotiations, but on the open floor he came across as highly inflamatory in his rhetoric. It was that fact, and not the drink, that hindered his effectiveness as a floor debator.
As for his anti-federalist contributions, you cannot reasonably dispute that they were among the most far-sighted of any on either side of the ratification debate. He held anti-slavery views that were more advanced than almost all of his peers, he foresaw the abusive growth of the federal government, he predicted the civil war in greater detail than anyone a full 70 years before it happened. Yet you desire to arbitrarily dismiss the quality of his writings for no other reason than that he worked opposite of your false deity Hamilton.
I'll have to get a copy of the book, looks interesting...
52 out of 85 is 3/5ths, not 2/3rds. And yes. It is also accurately described as "several."
My dictionary defines several as "of an indefinite number more than two or three" (emphasis added). Several suffices.
Historians of the topic, such as Forrest McDonald (who, BTW, is no small fan of Hamilton) tend to think so.
They lost because they are filled with paranoid ramblings, hysterical hyperbole and fear rather than hope.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. Thus your unsubstantiated attack upon them may be rejected in a word.
re the Federalist were written by three of the greatest men this nation ever produced their opponents were second rate at best. None of their authors are comparable to Hamilton, Madison or Jay in ANY respect.
I beg to differ. Without Richard Henry Lee there would be no union and no declaration of independence to begin with and no 10th amendment to protect the states from federal abuse. Without George Mason there would likely be no bill of rights, nor the famous "when in the course of human events...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" articulation in the Declaration (Jefferson quasi-plagiarized Mason's earlier words, though likely with consent, in the DoI). Without Patrick Henry it is likely that the revolution would not have gained much of the popular support it did thanks to his efforts. Each and every one of those men were creating a new nation at a time when your idol Hamilton was running around as George Washington's errand boy. They are no "second raters" by any reasonable, honest, and non-biased standards.
I will grant that the titles of the essays are hilarious.
Curious. I find "Federal Farmer" and "Brutus" no less amusing than "Publius," but whatever makes you happy...
Alcohol makes nice people abrasive and abrasive people intolerable. It did so with Martin.
I don't believe so. Martin's abrasiveness existed independently of alcohol as is evidenced by its presence at times when he was sober. The courtroom, where his abrasiveness often served as a plus, and the constitutional convention floor speeches, where it served as a minus, are prime examples. In each Martin was intellectually in his prime and his ability to win cases on brilliant arguments proves this so. Blaming alcohol for his abrasiveness or eccentricity simply does not suffice. The man was a genius of eccentric proportions long before alcohol ever entered into the picture. Therefore alcohol was at worst a secondary exacerbating device upon his unusual personality.
It is the most dangerous drug available legal or not in my opinion.
I'm happy you think so but, unless you desire to enter into a temperence debate, that is not material to this discussion. Nor is it material to attack Luther Martin's personal traits while simultaneously neglecting the far-sighted brilliance contained in his anti-federalist essays, of which you also labelled without substantiation to have been shoddy ramblings.
There was no abusive growth of the federal government at all and his prediction of it was dead wrong.
Curious. I strongly suspect 99% of this forum, as in those of us who pay taxes, would disagree with you. But then again you have strong keynesian tendencies so you probably wouldn't understand our grievances with the abusive, unconstitutional, and ever-invasive tax and spend welfare state that characterizes our government today and has characerized it for AT LEAST the last 70 years.
It was almost the same size in 1860 as in 1788
Not in 1861 though. Tax rates had gone through the roof by then thanks to the efforts of Lincoln and co.
I don't care that Martin opposed Hamilton (who is only a man to me, not a deity)
You sure treat him as one though! Assigning qualities to him that he never had in life, professing his alleged beliefs as if they were political gospel...sounds like a classic case of secular deification if I ever saw one!
Yeah. And George Mason lived next door to George Washington on the south for about a quarter century if not more. Bryan Fairfax lived next door to him in the north for the entire 45 years that he lived there and had known the family for even longer than that. So in other words, you are trying to allege that Washington's relationship was closer to his 5-year errand boy and 6-year cabinet secretary, with whom he had a professional relationship, than his 45-year next door neighbor and friend. That is simply absurd.
Visitors at Mount Vernon were frequently in packs without one to one contact as with the above.
Washington and Mason frequently dined together at their respective nearby homes before the latter died in the early 1790's. Fairfax and Washington frequently dined together at their respective homes up until Washington's death in 1799, at which time they had been corresponding regularly since 1754. That is hardly a "group visit" without contact.
Certainly Washinton had numerous friends and admirers but he had a unique relationship with Hamilton
Well, I suppose that, aside from their military actions together in the early 1760's, Fairfax was never Washington's errand boy. So yes. Hamilton's relationship was at least unique in its own way.
It is believable that his friendship with Fairfax being much longer could have produced a few more letters than with Hamilton but not many more.
Indeed, yet Fairfax's letters were almost all personal correspondences. I'd estimate that probably half if not more of Hamilton's are professional memos and dispatches from when he was working under washington in the army and cabinet.
It is curious that you feel obliged to attempt to disparage Hamilton's friendship with Washington
There is no need to disparage it, nor do I. I am simply noting for the record that you severely overstate its relevance and strength when it is a matter of historical fact that Washington had other friendships of significantly longer duration and closeness than that with Hamilton. If you should desire that I not make these facts known, abstain from overstating the nature of Hamilton's relationship and simply note that they were close friends, but by no means Washington's closest.
No. I'd say they lost by several points, as in an indefinate number greater than three. In case you missed that day in grade school math class, 42 certainly falls within the indefinate range of numbers that are greater than 3. Only in your bizarre world of semantical nonsense where many means a few, but not several, which also means many, but not many, which means a lot, but only sometimes, when it also means several, but not a lot and a lot at the same time could it mean anything different.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. Until you offer something of substance to merit your claims, I need nothing more than to reject them.
They are clearly second raters when it came down to capping the fight for independence and creating a government which could survive. None, not even Patrick Henry (who came around to supporting the constitution), are at the level of Washington, Hamilton, Jay, Adams, Madison, Jefferson, Marshall etc.
Once again, quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. I have already documented many of their respective contributions to the revolution and the years that followed it. Barring any substantive effort by you to rebut them, I need say nothing more to reject your assertions.
I spoke of titles of the essays, you reference pseudonyms of the authors which are irrelevent.
Just as the federalists have numerical designations, the anti-federalists are more often than not known by a numerical designation and name. Hence you have "Letter from the Federal Farmer No. 1" and so forth.
I don't think a true alcoholic is ever free from the effects of alcohol nor is its personality impact limited to periods of drunkeness.
Yet again your temperence ramblings are immaterial to this discussion.
Martin may well have been mentally ill but it is difficult to separate that from the alcohol.
Yet again you have offered no evidence of that and, out of your personal dislike for alcohol, continue to blind yourself to respecting the intelligence of a man who far surpassed you and most of his peers in that capacity.
There is little of brilliance in any of the anti essays.
What Martin predicted of a coming civil war between the states and national government surpasses in forsight any similar comment by any other individual on either side of the debate. Similarly, his views on slavery in his letters were advanced beyond those of even post-civil war America some 70 years after him. To deny the brilliance contained therein is to willfully ignore a matter of historical record.
I am determined to spread the word about the real Hamilton as opposed to the caricature created by the Jeffersonians.
...yet your primary means of doing so is to artificially inflate his record, assign to him beliefs that he never professed, deny from him beliefs that he did profess, and excuse away his every last fault at length through the sloppy game of semantical revisionism and willful equivocation that dominates the majority of what you post on this forum.
For 5 or so years in the revolution, Hamilton was an aid-de-camp or, in other words, a glorified errand boy.
To Washington his aides were part of "his familty."
Familty? H was a protege of W while Fairfax was clearly a contemporary and family friend. Different relations.
Yeah. Fairfax was a lifelong friend of Washington on the closest level. Hamilton knew him only the latter part of his life primarily through professional status and a friendship that, though strong, was not on level with the other.
There is no dispute that Hamilton's letters were far more concerned about political/military matters than Fairfax's.
...which only proves my point further. Fairfax was a close personal friend and the two shared personal matters. Hamilton was a professional associate and friend, but not on the level of Fairfax.
I have overstated nothing wrt the Washington/Hamilton relationship.
Sure you have. You portrayed him as Washington's closest friend. That is simply not true as other friends of Washington held closer friendships of longer duration and through tougher strains than Hamilton ever experienced with Washington. Bryan Fairfax is a central example of one who fits this category.
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.