Republican History Revealed

[GOPcapitalist]

Your analogy is irrelevent to the issue since Souter was not a conservative converted by Stevens.

Actually the general belief is that Souter was pulled to the hard left through his companionship with Brennan. So perhaps that would be a more specifically applicable analogy, but the point it conveys is still the same.

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

Not really. They were good but not the greatest ever. They are both dwarfed by Blackstone, among others. They are also surpassed when one considers law through areas of legal specification. The legendary courtroom greats like Felix Grundy and Luther Martin come to mind in that realm. The philosophical lawyers like Lysander Spooner and to some extent St. George Tucker classify as the greats in another realm, and so forth

Luther Martin left the Convention before it ended and did not help write the constitution.

Martin was present throughout most of the major debates and is generally credited with ensuring that the Senate had equal representation for each state - a provision he inserted into the committee compromises that led to the design of the senate. He departed late from the convention in protest to prepare to fight it in Maryland. Throughout the summer he was one of the most frequent speakers in the general session per Madison's notes.

[thatdewd]

Your addressed nothing in the attempted falsehood about Madison's draft.

LOL, I addressed EVERYTHING in my truths about Madison's draft. Read 'The Papers of George Washington'.

It was rejected and re-written by Hamilton.

LOL, Washington had instructed Hamilton that whatever Hamilton wrote must be, and I quote, "predicated upon the Sentiments" contained in the draft he supplied him with, the document that was primarily Madison's.

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?

LOL, based on your nonsensical rantings and circular anti-logic predicated upon the preposterous, I'd say you had quite a familiarity with revisionist historians. They have been quite successful in making people believe such foolishness as you profess regarding Washington's farewell address. Amazing, considering the fact that a simple review of Washington's papers demonstrate the truth. Too many people study historians, and not history.

Hamilton's policy was NOT pro-British, that is a LIE, he was TOTALLY pro-American and that dictated ALL his policies.

LOL, you're losing it. Even his allies admit his pro-British stance in regards to foreign policy. His economic policies were founded on a pro-British policy, and he was more than willing to start a war with France to maintain a pro-British position. That's hardly 'neutral'. You're just spouting nonsense again.

...Hamilton desperately struggled to avoid war with either party even when many Federalists were clamoring for war with the French...

Oh BS. He un-necessarily created a great deal of the animosity that almost led to war with France by convincing Washington to sign that asinine 'Jay Treaty'. Jay took his direction from 'you know who' for that surrender. That mob in New York should have used larger stones when they gave him what he deserved.

It is foolish to think that Hamilton would be warning (through Washington) against himself.

LOL, Remember now, Washington finally wrote his own draft based on the original draft by Madison and the draft he had Hamilton work up "predicated upon the Sentiments" in the one where he (GW) had added some material to Madison's original.

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

GW did think highly of Hamilton's abilities, but your statement is false.

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

LOL, Hamilton's manipultive behavior was notorious and was the source of most of his problems. In regards to GW, here's one: Convincing GW to support the idea of a National Bank. Although Washington did like certain points, he positively declared such a venture as unconstitutional and refused to support it. Hamilton, knowing Washington's love and respect of Madison, went back through a bunch of Madison's writings about the Constitution and then edited and carefully arranged them in such a way as to convince Ol' George that it was Constitutional after all, "based on Madison's writings". It was only by manipulating Madison's words and Washington's love of Madison that he was able to bring the Ol' Man to his side on the issue. Madison was none too pleased with this little game of Hamilton's when he found out what happened later. Of course, years later he too would eventually support the idea of the bank, for other reasons, but he didn't at the time, as you know.

[justshutupandtakeit]

"Sentiments" is not much to hang your hat on since the sentiments in Madison's draft were the same sentiments which Washington had asked him to include. They didn't come from Madison. Washington provided Hamilton with his draft, not Madison's. The New York Historical Society claims the "first draft" was in Washington's handwriting. It has that document. I don't believe Hamilton saw Madison's draft as you imply. "The exact authorship of this influential address is in dispute. Washington, Madison, Hamilton and John Jay all worked on it at one time or another, but there is little doubt that it expresses Washington's fundamental principles. "Speeches of the American Presidents- Podell and Anzovin, ed. Revisionists, no doubt.

I have read historians of every stripe so I will ask YOU again who these revisionists are. Forrest MacDonald? Mitchell? Brookshier? Lomax? Schacther? Lodge? Flexner? Morris? Hendrickson? Better yet, tell me who you consider non-revisionists.

Hamilton's policies were ALWAYS pro-American. That meant we sided with England more than some wished but that was to benefit AMERICA not Britain. If Britain profited thereby it was completely arbitrary not by design. You are LYING about any intent to start a war with France by Hamilton. His opposition to Adams was PRECISELY because he feared war with France would result from Adams' erratic policies. Why would you lie about something so easily shown to be false?

So it is Hamilton's fault there were stupid RATlike numbskulls in the 1790s who were incapable of understanding the truth? RATS have always been against those things which have helped America 1794 or 2003. They realized that after the Jay treaty there would be no war with England and had to resort to throwing rocks. Typical RAT behavior. There are always those who prefer posturing and bravado to statesmanship.

So one of the greatest expositions of the meaning of the constitution is an example of Hamilton's "manipulations"? LOL, pretty amusing. His argument convinced Washington by its imperviousness to refutation and by its complete destruction of Jefferson's and Randolph's flimsy arguments against the Bank, Madison or no Madison. It is in no way a rearrangement of Madison's views. Though it is true that Madison could only argue against it by arguing against his own earlier positions.

[justshutupandtakeit]

It is unlikely Souter was ever anything other than what he is. His nomination was precisely because there was no record of any rightwing adjudications or writings that could allow the RATS to oppose him on a theoretical basis. He was the original "pig in a poke."

Blackstone I will grant you, but not the others. Few know anything about Hamilton's legal work which was groundbreaking in this country in many areas.

Since equal representation was already the way the Congress was constituted, Martin did not have to convince too many people to leave it that way for the Senate. Martin wound up being a good Federalist. No doubt he was immensely talented.

[justshutupandtakeit]

You need to take more care with your lies. I never said H was W's "best friend." I said W never had greater regard for any man. That is NOT the same thing. He was NOT W's best friend, that is your concoction. Their age difference and personalities would not allow them to be best friends.

Hamilton wrote of political matters to Washington before and after W was in office. Fairfax had little or no influence upon Washington's political opinions.

When you concoct false statements and attribute them to me it is easy to see who is playing "word games."

George Washington never had a greater regard for ANY man than he did Hamilton. Twist that however you like.

[GOPcapitalist]

It is unlikely Souter was ever anything other than what he is.

Those who know him say that he came to the court as an undecided middle of the roader - probably in the O'Conner mold or something like that. He is known to have become very close to William Brennan and his politics have taken a hard turn to the left ever since.

Few know anything about Hamilton's legal work

And that alone is evidence that you severely overstate his importance.

Martin wound up being a good Federalist.

Actually he became a states-rights federalist. In a sense he was probably the foremost of a very small rebellious faction within that party.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Few study any lawyer even one as great as Hamilton. He was so multi-faceted that it is easy enough to ignore major achievements which would by themselves make the reputation of a lesser man. In no way have I overestimated his legal career.

Martin was confused but at least he was anti-Jefferson.

[GOPcapitalist]

Few study any lawyer even one as great as Hamilton.

That is false. Most decent law programs have courses in Blackstone, Hale, Marshall, Coke, and one or two of the later Americans (typically a prominent justice) or combinations thereof, yet virtually none has a course in Hamilton. On the courtroom side of the law, historians often teach of the Felix Grundys and Clarence Darrows, but never Hamilton. That is not to say that Hamilton wasn't a good lawyer - simply that he wasn't as great or as prominent as you hype him up to be.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Hamilton was the leading lawyer in his day in New York. He was acknowledged as such by such as Chancellor Kent and many others, few (other than you) dispute this fact. When the Coswell trial was held in Albany the entire state government including the legislature shut down for lack of a quorum because they wanted to see Hamilton.

Hamilton's notes to study for the bar were subsequently used by would-be lawyers for decades.

His role in Rutgers v. Waddington was paramount and established the supremacy of treaties over state law.

His arguments changed the way maritime insurance was determined.

Coke, and Hale are rarely studied in Law Schools and almost none have courses devoted to them. As far as Marshall his opinion of Hamilton could not be higher. He said that compared to Hamilton's legal reasoning his own was like a "taper to the sun." Marshall considered him to be America's greatest lawyer.

Hamilton's law practice has been studied extensively and its greatest student, Goebel, has produced a multi-volume study of over a thousand pages.

Any praise I have given him is totally justified and perhaps not extensive enough. His other achievements have caused less attention to be paid to his legal abilities.

Perhaps the greatest example of his knowledge of and ability to explain the law and debate its points is the ratification convention of New York State. There he, almost single-handedly, converted a two to one majority against the constitution to a majority in support. None could stand against his arguments even though determined to defeat the constitution. Even Clinton's party hacks were powerless.

[GOPcapitalist]

Hamilton was the leading lawyer in his day in New York. He was acknowledged as such by such as Chancellor Kent and many others, few (other than you) dispute this fact.

Once again, NOBODY disputes that Hamilton was a skilled and generally well regarded lawyer. I do dispute your near-worshipful fawning over him though in which you try to pass him off as the greatest lawyer of all time or something very close to that. The fact is he simply was not. I have already given you easily half a dozen or more names of other lawyers who were by far more distinguished and famous AS LAWYERS than Hamilton, distinguished as he was, ever became in either his own lifetime or after it.

Coke, and Hale are rarely studied in Law Schools and almost none have courses devoted to them.

Oh really? A semester of English-American legal history is commonplace in law programs. Coke and Hale are standard in practically all of these courses.

[justshutupandtakeit]

All I say is that Hamilton was the greatest American lawyer of his day.

A course which mentions those names in passing will also mention Hamilton's (probably even more) but that was not your original claim. Blackstone is a different matter because of his role in actually providing a teaching tool that has been used by the generations after him. He would probably be considered the greatest lawyer of all.

If you doubt my statements about H read what Forrest MacDonald (and authority you seem to accept) has to say about him. I only give credit where credit is due.

[GOPcapitalist]

All I say is that Hamilton was the greatest American lawyer of his day.

And I say he was good but not the greatest. The greats of that era were all defined in their respective areas of practice. In legal scholarship it was St. George Tucker, aka America's Blackstone. In courtroom ability it was Felix Grundy, who came about a decade after Hamilton. In judicial stature it was Marshall, who needs no introduction.

A course which mentions those names in passing

It's no matter of passive mention for them. A course entitled "British Legal History" or "British-American Legal History" will undoubtedly focus one or more lectures on Coke, Hale, and Blackstone plus a lecture on the Americans as a group (which will probably go over Tucker, Story, and maybe Rawls). Marshall will probably get a day as well. Hamilton, by comparison, will be a passively mentioned historical footnote as an accomplished lawyer but little more.

Blackstone is a different matter because of his role in actually providing a teaching tool that has been used by the generations after him.

Blackstone's contribution is no mere teaching tool, but rather his legal scholarship on the common law. Coke, Hale, and Tucker all provided similar legal scholarship, which is their respective contribution. Hamilton, on the other hand, is simply not known on par with the others as a legal scholar. He is known as a lawyer and a skilled one at that. But not in the sense of a Blackstone or Coke or any other of their category.

[justshutupandtakeit]

You can disgree with his contemporaries if you like, I am merely reflecting their views. His scholarship was exemplary and his courtroom presence electric. Kent is an excellent source for the facts about Hamilton as a lawyer.

Blackstone's scholarship has formed the basic legal education for lawyers for two hundred plus years. His Commentaries are a teaching tool without par.

[GOPcapitalist]

I am simply disagreeing with your analysis of Hamilton. You treat him as if he were the greatest thing to ever grace a courtroom in America and treat any interpretation of him that suggests he was anything less than the legal deity you make him out to be as if it were a blasphemy upon his reputation.

I am simply reigning in your sillyness with a dose of reality - a reality that concedes Hamilton was a good and skilled lawyer yet does not accept his assignment into the realm of a platonic form. For most people this would be a perfectly agreeable thing. It is perfectly okay and admirable to be good and recognized yet to also fall short of the elusive "greatest ever" status. As far as all star American lawyers go, he was a Carlton Fiske or a Joe Morgan or maybe even a Yogi Berra. But he was no Babe Ruth.

[justshutupandtakeit]

He hit 'em out of the park more often than the Babe. Lack of knowledge of his legal activities should prevent your speaking of them but obviously doesn't. Certainly he went further in the legal field than any "errand boy."

Many would consider the claim that he was America's greatest lawyer to be a condemnation.

I cannot imagine why you feel it necessary to dispute what his contemporaries believed as well as almost all the scholars who have studied his life (even those who do not like him.) All I am doing is reflecting what they say.

[Who is John Galt?]

In legal scholarship it was St. George Tucker, aka America's Blackstone...

Tucker's legal and patriotic credentials are beyond dispute - and I've always found it worth noting that his 1803 edition of Blackstone's Commentaries acknowledges the right of State secession. How times have changed...

;>)