Republican History Revealed

[GOPcapitalist]

Washington's program was Hamilton's.

So Washington supported partisan politics, neo-mercantilist protectionism, and government spending handouts? Curious.

[wardaddy]

LOL...hubris.

[stainlessbanner]

more profiteering on FR

[stainlessbanner]

What else is for sale on FR? See 781

[Constitution Day]

I guess everyone needs their own cheering section now. ;)

[justshutupandtakeit]

Hamilton's ideas and programs formed the basis of the Washington administration. You really doubt that?

[justshutupandtakeit]

For one claiming to be a member of Mensa it is surprising that your etymological understanding is so low. A "few" is indefinite but must be defined in relation to the population described. Obviously no valid use of the word relates 52+ out of a population of 85. A case might be made that 52 out of 8,500 is a "few" or 52 out of 85,000 is a "few" but not 52+ out of 85.

Nor did the Bears lose by "several" points they lost by a very LARGE number of points.

What do you do when not defending moronic positions against reality?

Are you sure you are not a member of DENSA?

[justshutupandtakeit]

Your regard is no argument for the value of the ramblings of the anti-federalists. History has justly relegated them to the "discard" pile not me.

There were few if any contributions after the revolution from the unreconstructed antis. Those who saw the error of their ways may have done something worthy of praise.

"A dangerous plan of benefit to the Aristocratik combination," "Adoption of the constitution will lead to civil war," "The power vested in congress of sending troops for suppressing insurrections will always enable them to stifle the first stirrings of freedom," " A consolidated government is a tyranny," "Objections to a Standing Army," "The danger of congressional control of elections," " The powers and dangerous potential of his elected majesty," "The President as military King," as I said funny stuff. Hyperbolic to the max and paranoid to the core but still funny stuff.

Alcohol was under discussion with relation to Luther Martin.

I don't dislike alcohol and drink it with meals or on social occasions. It doesn't like me if I overindulge. I have not disparaged Martin's abilities. His opposition to slavery makes him a voice worth hearing IN THAT REGARD. However, his opposition to the constitution cancelled much of the good he did. Thus, he cannot be said to have been a statesman of any significance.

Every word I have said about Hamilton is true. Outside of claiming he walked on water it is difficult to inflate or overvalue his achievements.

Of course, had he actually walked on water you would be there sneering "What he can't swim?"

[justshutupandtakeit]

It is not surprising that you would distort the actual role of Hamilton as a staff member by claiming him to be no more than a messenger. He wrote most of Washington's letters, negoitated with senior generals, participated in conferences with foreign generals, was responsible for liason with the French officers since he spoke French, took part in the planning and preparations for campaigns. Washington's enemies routinely attacked Washington for the influence of his "errand boy." Suuure they did. What a mope!

Familty- LoL.

Hamilton was not the same kind of friend as FF but Washington held no man in greater regard and valued no man's opinion and advice more than H's. While they did spend some social time together such as at the theater and dinner parties, their friendship was not of the best buddies type.
After all there was a twenty year difference in ages.

No Hamilton was W.'s protege and closest advisor. More like a son than closest personal friend. I don't mean to say they were like Archie and Jughead.

[thatdewd]

Madison's draft of the FA was junked by Hamilton.

False. The draft Washington gave Hamilton to work with was the Madison draft that Washington had made additions to. Hamilton made an outline of the ideas it contained (mostly MADISON's), and then worked up his own draft based on those (mostly MADISON's) ideas. Washington had instructed Hamilton that whatever Hamilton wrote must be "predicated upon the Sentiments" contained in the draft he supplied him with, the document that was primarily Madison's. Washington did NOT just go with the Hamilton draft, like many revisionist historians would have you believe. Instead, he took Madison's draft and Hamilton's draft and made his own out of them both. What the Hamiltonian revisionist zealots don't want anyone to know is that the very ideas that Washington restricted Hamilton to working with were MADISON's. Hamilton's draft was limited to Madison's and Washington's ideas. Madison at the first, Madison in the middle, and Madison at the end. Who contributed more to the address? Madison by far. Madison and Washington contributed the ideas, and Hamilton's job was to make it sound pretty.

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.

No, they don't. See above. I would also suggest that you study history, and not historians. A simple review of 'The Papers of George Washington' should correct your mistaken ideas on this subject.

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.

Yes, there was much passing back and forth between Washington and Hamilton regarding H's draft based on Madison's ideas. Washington amended H's draft over and over and over again before just writing his own based on Madison's original draft and the heavily amended Hamilton draft based on Madison's key ideas.

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.

LOL, that's just BS, see above. BTW, why don't you think the warnings are directed at Hamilton's alignment with Britain, and his desire for the US to declare war on France?

They are also TOTALLY in accord with Hamilton's views of foreign policy.

LOL, you mean like all his clamoring for the US to side with Britain and declare war on France?

The only "apartness" between the two was that H had left the government.

They were not as close at the end as they had been earlier. Hamilton's endless antics and troublemaking fueled the fires of party politics, something anathema to Washington. Hamilton's obviously hateful opinion of the common man was something else Washington was put off by, even more at the end. I'm not saying they weren't still friends, or that Washington stopped dealing with him. I'm only pointing out that they weren't as close at the end as they were earlier. Washington had great faith in H's abilities, but he was more sensitive of Hamilton's many negative attributes later on than he was earlier. After H resigned his post in Washington's administration, he only increased in his destructive activities, until someone shut him up, that is.

Do you just make up stuff out of thin air or is there some deluded quack you depend on for it?

The fact that you consider untwisted and unrevised history to be so devised is the greatest validation my position could ever receive.

[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...

Hamilton's preferred ideas regarding an empirical central government are and were no secret. Your revisionist attempts to make it seem otherwise cannot erase history. After realising that no such plan would ever, ever succeed at the convention, he supported the proposed federal form of government. Suffice it to say that James Madison addressed the issue of his initial support quite nicely when, remembering Hamilton in 1831, he said the following:

"If his theory of government deviated from the republican standard he had the candor to avow it, and the greater merit of cooperating faithfully in maturing and supporting a system which was not his choice."

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.

Abel Upshur put it best:

'The Federal Government is the creature of the States. It is not a party to the Constitution, but the result of it - the creation of that agreement which was made by the States as parties. It is a mere agent, entrusted with limited powers for certain specific objects; which powers and objects are enumerated in the Constitution." - Abel Upshur, 'The Federal Government, Its True Nature and Character' 1868

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.

Only in regards to those few and limited powers specifically granted to the Constitution. In ALL other things, the States were to be supreme.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite." - James Madison, Federalist Essay # 45

But the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, exclusively delegated to the United States." (emphasis his)- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Essay # 32

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. - Constitution of the United States, 10th Amendment

Yes, that is what I have been saying the authority was "from the People themselves." Glad you admit it.

The "people themselves" that Madison refers to were the people of each STATE, representing each STATE, and acting as STATES. The "People" did not ratify the Constitution, STATES did. As he clearly stated:

"That it will be a federal and not a national act...is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the union, nor from that of a majority of the states. It must result from the unanimous assent of the several states that are parties to it...were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each state must bind the minority... Neither of these rules has been adopted. Each state, in ratifying the constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, not a national constitution." James Madison, Federalist Essay # 39

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.

After the Constitutional union was established, the supra-nationalists with Hamilton at the head, began their dirty work of undoing the intended framework established at the conventions. The reason that Hamilton and some others had supported the Federal Constitution soon became obvious: They knew they could use deceitful legalism to pervert its language and achieve their original nationalist/consolidationist goals. As Jefferson wisely observed in 1820:

"The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric. They are construing our constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone. This will lay all things at their feet..." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Ritchie, December 25, 1820

That is exactly what has happened, and what is happening still. The Constitutional government established by the Founding Fathers, and the one which the States agreed to, was erased by judicial action long, long ago.

[thatdewd]

...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.

LOL, Oh, please. I have already addressed your nonsense about Madison's contributions to Washington's farewell address in post # 810. If you would just read it, you'll see that the address applies just as much to the pro-British policies of Hamilton, a fact your revisionist Hamiltonian "historians" have conveniently failed to mention.

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.

LOL, he was bemoaning the fact that he couldn't use Washington anymore to further his personal political ambitions and partisan back-stabbing. He was on his own.

Even as early as 1780 there were those claiming Washington was a captive of his aides (meaning Hamilton.)

Hamilton's selfish manipulations were obvious to many.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Your addressed nothing in the attempted falsehood about Madison's draft. It was rejected and re-written by Hamilton. There is no credible historian who claims otherwise. Who are these "revisionist historians" the DS brigade are always babbling about? Any one with a degree from a major university?

Hamilton's policy was NOT pro-British, that is a LIE, he was TOTALLY pro-American and that dictated ALL his policies. His policy WAS to maintain neutrality between France and England primarily because the success of his financial system depended upon peace with England. This was why he prevented Jefferson and Madison from imposing constraints and barriers to trade from England.

Why do you think the DemocRAT-Republicans were so dead set AGAINST declaring a policy of neutrality unless they wanted intervention on the side of the French? Hamilton desperately struggled to avoid war with either party even when many Federalists were clamoring for war with the French. He understood that war would mean disaster for the US.

It is foolish to think that Hamilton would be warning (through Washington) against himself. And false. There was never ANY agitation to ally with Britain against France so such a warning was totally unnecessary. The FA address was directly pointed at the D-R Francophiles.

It is still a fact that Washington regarded no man higher than Alexander Hamilton, like it or not.

Care to list any such manipulations? I am not going to be holding my breath waiting for THAT nonsense.

[justshutupandtakeit]

And the reason that Washington did not give the draft back to Madison for revision was? Wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that the intervening four yrs. had demonstrated that Madison's ideas were no longer relevent now could it?

Hamilton NEVER had any intention of declaring war on France. Above all he wanted to avoid war with ANYONE. What lamebrained sources did that gem come from? It is true he was ready to serve when Washington DEMANDED that he be second in command (actually first since W's health would have prevented him from taking the field) but that is a far cry from WANTING war against France.

Boy, you have all the lying cliches down don't you? "Hatred" of the common man is one of the more stupid. He was a believer in representative government but not democracy as the term was understood during that day. Apparently you have never read a competent biography of H or you would not say such stupid things. Even those biographers who do not care for H don't pretend he hated anyone. In fact, it was the common man (mechanics, longshoresmen, teamsters, clerks, etc.) who made up the bulk of the mourners at his funeral. And who made up the bulk of the largest procession in the history of NY city (up until that day) escorting the coffin to the graveyard.

Any competent biographer tells of how H often took the cases of the poor for nothing and never overcharged his clients even when they could afford more. He took the cases of slaves fighting to remain free for no charge and was one of the founders of the New York Society for the Manumission of Slaves. Yeah, that really sounds like a man who "hated the common man."

What BS will you throw out next? That he was a Satan worshipper?

There is no doubt that the conflict between J and H drove W bonkers but it did not impede his love and regard for the latter as it DID the former. That is why W never wanted J's name mentioned in his presence in later years. And is clearly shown by the FACT that W FORCED Adams to appoint H as his second in command.

I see little history in your writing other than the conventional superficial falsehoods which have little to do with reality. Such as H's "hatred of the common man." There are many valid criticisms which can be made of H, and his policies but to say such patently false things invalidates much of what you might say that would be true. It indicates a determined ignorance which refuses to examine the facts.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I have never claimed H did not want a stronger central government nor has anyone else that I am aware of. He did and for good reason. This is why he was joined by virtually ALL of the principle founders in that wish. Madison, Washington, Adams, Jay, Franklin, even Jefferson (initially) all recognized that the Articles were incompetent to govern. Why do you select H for condemnation when his views at the CC were not that different from Madison's.

States did not create the constitution, the American People created both States AND the constitution.

Powers granted to the federal government are immense and were only limited in a small degree by the small amount of sovereignty left the States. What do you think the Anti-federalists were talking about? Since you believe the antis were correct then you have to admit that what happened later was consistent with the constitution.

No, the American People gathered in States ratified the constitution. Congress called for conventions to be held in the States to do so. It could have called for other means such as conventions in districts of states or even conventions by regions but doing it by states was most convenient. Had Congress wanted States to make such a decision it would have just called for legislatures to do it. And the 10th amendment has always been the "bastard stepchild" of the constitution with very little relevence primarily because it is so vague as to be almost meaningless constitutionally.

Certainly those who prefer to act without the sanction of the law condemn those who do. Jefferson was not much of a constitutional scholar particularly when compared to Hamilton and Marshall, the two greatest legal minds in the nation during their time. What Jefferson neglects to add in his whine is that HE appointed Justices who were loyal Jeffersonians only to find them swayed by Marshall's brilliance and that Madison did the same thing (by the time Marshall died ALL the other justices were appointed by Jeffersonians.) They were astounded to find that their ideology was not able to stand against Marshall's legal reasoning. Perhaps his greatest disappointment was that the Court actually worked JUST AS IT HAD BEEN INTENDED TO BY THE CONSTITUTION. LoL.

[GOPcapitalist]

It is still a fact that Washington regarded no man higher than Alexander Hamilton, like it or not.

No it isn't. Washington's regard for Bryan Fairfax was both on a closer, more personal level and of longer duration than anything involving Hamilton.

[GOPcapitalist]

They were astounded to find that their ideology was not able to stand against Marshall's legal reasoning

Nonsense. That is akin to saying "David Souter arrived on the court as a conservative but was so astounded to find that his ideology was not able to stand against John Paul Stevens' legal reasoning." The real issue is that justices do not always turn out like they were anticipated to behave. It was as true then as it is today.

As for Marshall, he had both his strokes of brilliance and his faults. He gave some good decisions and some bad ones including those that defied all basic common sense before him.

Marbury v. Maryland is a classic case of the latter. Arguing Marbury's side of what the constitution's enumerated powers were intended to mean was a young lawyer named Daniel Webster who, though reasonably intelligent, was not a participant in that document's drafting and possessed virtually no first hand knowledge to its intentions and meanings from the convention. Arguing Maryland's side was Luther Martin, who also happened to have been there in 1787 and actually helped to draft the very same words that were being disputed. He was also one of the convention's most active debators and knew the document it produced inside and out. So who does Marshall listen to and side with? Certainly not the guy who was there and could credibly tell you what the words he himself helped to write meant. No, instead he went for the loose constructionist interpretation offered by Webster.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Your analogy is irrelevent to the issue since Souter was not a conservative converted by Stevens. Jefferson himself decried arguing with Marshall by saying that one could not grant him a single point else you were lost because of his "twistifications" (I do like Jefferson's tendency to make up words.)

Marshall and Hamilton were the greatest legal minds of their day and likely any other.

Luther Martin left the Convention before it ended and did not help write the constitution. However, he did wind up a member of the Federalist Party because he couldn't stand Jefferson. It is unlikely that Webster's argument had much influence on Marshall's decision in Marbury.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Having higher regard for a person does not mean they are greater friends. Certainly not when one is repeatedly turned to for political advice over the decades. That was certainly not the case with Fairfax. One of the reasons Washington admired Hamilton was because of his "intuitively great judgment" which W called upon for over two decades.

You don't think much about what is said because you are just so anxious to dispute my comments. One can have the highest regard for someone without even being a personal friend. I have the highest regard for President Bush but he is not my personal friend.

Regard is not always personal. Nor is it synonymous with friendship. I never claimed Hamilton was Washington's greatest friend just that he had higher regard for no man.

[GOPcapitalist]

Having higher regard for a person does not mean they are greater friends.

Playing fast and loose with the words again, eh fake-it? First it was washington had no greater friend than Hamilton..but that didn't work for you because he did - Bryan Fairfax. Next it was Washington held nobody in higher regard than Hamilton...but that didn't work for you either because he did - again Bryan Fairfax. Now you're back to the best friends line and once again I will simply point out the fact that Washington's friendship with Bryan Fairfax was of significantly longer duration and far greater personal depth than anything with Hamilton. That would make him a closer friend than Hamilton.

Certainly not when one is repeatedly turned to for political advice over the decades.

Hamilton was professionally tasked to give Washington political advice and in his years as a cabinet member had that very item as his central job description.

That was certainly not the case with Fairfax.

Yes it was. They discussed their personal beliefs on root political matters at length. They even ended up on opposite sides in the revolution and discussed it with each other, yet remained close friends throughout.

You don't think much about what is said because you are just so anxious to dispute my comments.

No. I simply take notice of your increasingly absurd word games then take you to task over them.