- Here is another person that the founders used to create our nation -
- Permalink Reply by on
- Alors qu'est-ce que je saisYes I know him well it is where I got the phrase above "So what do I know?"
- Permalink Reply by on
- If you compare Hamilton's actions during and after the signing, with the rhetoric you will find what I have stated IMO. He was surly not a Anti Federalist.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Exactly he was a Federalist. look at the alien and sedition act to which he was party. Signed into law by John Adams a co conspirator. The Democratic-Republicans, and later historians, denounced them as being both unconstitutional and designed to stifle criticism of the administration, and as infringing on the right of the states to act in these areas.
Jefferson tried to put forward the Compact Theory, which holds that the United States is made up of a voluntary union of states that agree to cede some of their authority in order to join the union, but that the states do not, ultimately, surrender their sovereign rights. Federalist-dominated state legislatures rejected Jefferson's position through resolutions either supporting the Acts or denying the ability of Virginia and Kentucky to circumvent them. This fight over state right is not a new one but has been going on from the beginning.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Careful, back then Federalists were not federalist in the terms we now use. Hamilton if you have read his bio was convinced that the nation needed a very strong Executive office - kind of what we have now IMO. He did not trust the voters and the Congress. Here are some quote that can shine some light on Hamilton.A national debt, if it is not excessive, will be to us a national blessing.
Constitutions should consist only of general provisions; the reason is that they must necessarily be permanent, and that they cannot calculate for the possible change of things.
Even to observe neutrality you must have a strong government
Here, sir, the people govern; here they act by their immediate representatives.
In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place, oblige it to control itself
In the general course of human nature, A power over a man's subsistence amounts to a power over his will.
It's not tyranny we desire; it's a just, limited, federal government
Learn to think continentallyMen often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
Power over a man's subsistence is power over his will
The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased.
The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God; and, however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true to fact. The people are turbulent and changing, they seldom judge or determine right.
Those who stand for nothing fall for anything.
Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of man will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint.
You should not have taken advantage of my sensibility to steal into my affections without my consent.
Alexander Hamilton
- Permalink Reply by on
- Lock it seams that we are in agreement as always. The Federalist were the progressives of their times. They wanted a strong central government the Anti Federalist "Democratic-Republicans," Jefferson's party of choice wanted Strong States and a limited Federal government.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Jefferson was not always a non-progressive in our current understanding.
You say that I have been dished up to you as an antifederalist, and ask me if it be just. My opinion was never worthy enough of notice to merit citing; but since you ask it I will tell it you. I am not a Federalist, because I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all. Therefore I protest to you I am not of the party of federalists. But I am much farther from that than of the Antifederalists. - Letter to Francis Hopkinson (13 March 1789)I have more but just showing that all were educated in Europe and were all over the place at different times.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Unless I am mistaken Jefferson is saying that he is not a federalist but that he sees himself as closer to an Anti Federalist and can see no need to call himself ether one because he can think for himself. He does not need religion or political parties to tell him how to think. Which is how I see myself I am not a Democrat but much closer to being a Republican then a Libertarian but in reality I do as I please.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Read Federalist 10In Hamilton’s view the peoples dissent of the government can be controlled if the government could encourage the dumbing down of the people to create stratification in the nation’s intellect, to prevent unity of the people and allow to government to have greater control over the populist. Thank G-D for Aaron Burr.
- Permalink Reply by on
- John Adams defined a republic as "a government of laws, and not of men."[2] Constitutional republics attempt to weaken the threat of majoritarianism and protect dissenting individuals and minority groups from the "tyranny of the majority" by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population.[3] The power of the majority of the people is limited to electing representatives who legislate within the limits of an overarching constitutional law that a simple majority cannot modifyIs this the same John Adams you do not like along with Hamilton - one must be careful of making to much of each single piece of work product as you never know the true context? IMHO
- Permalink Reply by on
- I think that too many people try to deify many of the Founding Fathers, and the Constitution both of which have there faults. The thing to remember in our study IMO is that the Founding Fathers were men just like us and that any government must have the power to control, if it is to be a government at all. Many of the problems that we see today were seen when the Constitution was written, and when Adams Hamilton and Madison were trying to sell it to the people. Jefferson saw the problems and tried to warn the people but did not have the political power to stop it until he became President. Could a better Constitution been written I do not think so, was the Bill of Rights need to correct some of the problems? Absolutely. Are there Amendments that need to repealed? Again I say absolutely. All I am Trying to do is point out some of the flaws as I see them and to learn with you as we study this most interesting part of our history.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Never in a thousand years should government have the POWER to do anything on it's own. Government in our Republic exists only at the pleasure of the PEOPLE. For the Constitution which limits the powers of the government at the Federal level with Article I section 8 line 1 - 17/ The so called enumerated powers. Jefferson was a Progressive and supported re-distributional taxes at one point as did Franklin. No one thinks that the Founders were anything other than hard working very good thinkers that created the best most free society in the history of planet earth.They were even so far forward thinkers that they knew the constitution would need to be changed so they put in Article V so it could be done but not without much argument and hard slow work. They also knew it was still possible to usurp and they kept the rights to bear and keep arms in the hands of the people so rebellion could be the last resort to save the Republic.You can pick nits but the greater body of work is flawless even after 230 + years. Do not read ever word as the only word the individual Founder wrote on the subjects of freedoms and protections. IMO there is no reason for the government to ever have power over the people - only be limited to do the people work with the approval of the people through their representatives in the States and Washington.
No comments:
Post a Comment