7 votes

"Galileo" to Speak on James Madison & War of 1812

"Galileo" to Speak on James Madison & War of 1812

Galileo will be making a feature speech on James Madison & the War of 1812

The speech will cover Madison's achievements including the Constitution, Bill-of-Rights, Federalist Papers, and the War of 1812.

The speech will also cover the problem of systemic liberal bias against our sacred Founding Fathers.

A lively session of questions and answers will follow the speech.

The event is sponsored by Pints & Politics and the RPDC.

Please attend and bring your friends, neighbors, and countrymen!

Tuesday, August 5

at 5:30pm - 7:30pm

"The 5100" Restaurant, 5100 Erling Ave, McFarland, WI



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Woods is one of those

Woods is one of those conspiracy-type people that hate James Madison and who think this way: The Iraq war was bad, and the Vietnam was bad, therefore the War of 1812 must have been bad.

Many of those who "opposed" the War of 1812 were the banking cartels and their minions who were in treasonous collaboration with the British. The British were using a divide and conquer strategy to break up the US by showering financial favors on the NE banking interests.

Thomas Jefferson 1796, 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Ron Paul 1988, 2008, 2012; Rand Paul 2016.

Not a matter...

...of hating Madison, I'd say, but of hating the evils that inescapably go hand-in-hand with war and not glamourizing it or minimizing the human toll involved.

Personally, I appreciate Madison's involvement with the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions and his arguments against the constitutionality of Hamilton's central bank; but other major issues I have with him are:

- his support of nationalist, centralized government as opposed to a federal republic, especially as he proposed during the drafting of the Constitution with the Virginia plan

- his turning around and supporting the second national bank despite his earlier arguments against

- his support of the embargoes during the Jefferson administration

But I do favor Jefferson's and Madison's republican views over those of Federalists, when they were being consistent with their own principles. Their opposition to the Alien and Sedition Acts was admirable.

The Constitution created a

The Constitution created a very small central government with federal spending averaging only 2% of GDP between 1788 and 1913. Most Americans has no contact whatsoever with this small central government during their lifetime. Hence, the US economy went from 0.5% of the entire world's industrial output in 1788, to 42% of the world in 1913. Never in the annals of history has there ever been sustained prosperity like this over a 125 year period. We can thank James Madison.

Thomas Jefferson 1796, 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Ron Paul 1988, 2008, 2012; Rand Paul 2016.

Opportunity knocks


What then are we to think of the motives and designs of those men who are urging the implicit and immediate adoption of the proposed government; are they fearful, that if you exercise your good sense and discernment, you will discover the masqued aristocracy, that they are attempting to smuggle upon you under the suspicious garb of republicanism? When we find that the principal agents in this business are the very men who fabricated the form of government, it certainly ought to be conclusive evidence of their invidious design to deprive us of our liberties. The circumstances attending this matter, are such as should in a peculiar manner excite your suspicion; it might not be useless to take a review of some of them. In many of the states, particularly in this [Pennsylvania] and the northern states, there are aristocratic juntos of the well-horn few, who have been zealously endeavoring since the establishment of their constitutions, to humble that offensive upstart, equal liberty; but all their efforts were unavailing, the ill-bred churl obstinately kept his assumed station. . . .

A comparison of the authority under which the convention acted, and their form of government, will show that they have despised their delegated power, and assumed sovereignty; that they have entirely annihilated the old confederation, and the particular governments of the several States, and instead thereof have established one general government that is to pervade the union; constituted on the most unequal principles, destitute of accountability to its constituents, and as despotic in its nature, as the Venetian aristocracy; a government that will give full scope to the magnificent designs of the well-horn, a government where tyranny may glut its vengeance on the low-born, unchecked by an odious bill of rights. . . ; and yet as a blind upon the understandings of the people, they have continued the forms of the particular governments, and termed the whole a confederation of the United States, pursuant to the sentiments of that profound, but corrupt politician Machiavel, who advises any one who would change the constitution of a state to keep as much as possible to the old forms; for then the people seeing the same officers, the same formalities, courts of justice and other outward appearances, are insensible of the alteration, and believe themselves in possession of their old government. Thus Caesar, when he seized the Roman liberties, caused himself to be chosen dictator (which was an ancient office), continued the senate, the consuls, the tribunes, the censors, and all other offices and forms of the commonwealth; and yet changed Rome from the most free, to the most tyrannical government in the world. . . .

The late convention, in the majesty of its assumed omnipotence, have not even condescended to submit the plan of the new government to the confederation of the people, the true source of authority; but have called upon them by their several constitutions, to 'assent to and ratify' in toto, what they have been pleased to decree; just as the grand monarch of France requires the parliament of Paris to register his edicts without revision or alteration, which is necessary previous to their execution. . . .

If you are in doubt about the nature and principles of the proposed government, view the conduct of its authors and patrons: that affords the best explanation, the most striking comment. The evil genius of darkness presided at its birth, it came forth under the veil of mystery, its true features being carefully concealed, and every deceptive art has been and is practicing to have this spurious brat received as the genuine offspring of heaven-born liberty. So fearful are its patrons that you should discern the imposition, that they have hurried on its adoption, with the greatest precipitation. . .

After so recent a triumph over British despots, after such torrents of blood and treasure have been spent, after involving ourselves in the distresses of an arduous war, and incurring such a debt for the express purpose of asserting the rights of humanity; it is truly astonishing that a set of men among ourselves should have the effrontery to attempt the destruction of our liberties. But in this enlightened age to hope to dupe the people by the arts they are practicing is still more extraordinary. . .

The advocates of this plan have artfully attempted to veil over the true nature and principles of it with the names of those respectable characters that by consummate cunning and address they have prevailed upon to sign it; and what ought to convince the people of the deception and excite their apprehensions, is that with every advantage which education, the science of government and of law, the knowledge of history and superior talents and endowments, furnish the authors and advocates of this plan with, they have from its publication exerted all their power and influence to prevent all discussion of the subject, and when this could not be prevented they have constantly avoided the ground of argument and recurred to declamation, sophistry and personal abuse, but principally relied upon the magic of names. . . . Emboldened by the sanction of the august name of a Washington, that they have prostituted to their purpose, they have presumed to overleap the usual gradations to absolute power, and have attempted to seize at once upon the supremacy of dominion.


. . . Another thing they tell us, that the constitution must be good, from the characters which composed the Convention that framed it. It is graced with the names of a Washington and a Franklin. Illustrious names, we know-worthy characters in civil society. Yet we cannot suppose them to be infallible guides; neither yet that a man must necessarily incur guilt to himself merely by dissenting from them in opinion. We cannot think the noble general has the same ideas with ourselves, with regard to the rules of right and wrong. We cannot think he acts a very consistent part, or did through the whole of the contest with Great Britain. Notwithstanding he wielded the sword in defense of American liberty, yet at the same time was, and is to this day, living upon the labors of several hundreds of miserable Africans, as free born as himself; and some of them very likely, descended from parents who, in point of property and dignity in their own country, might cope with any man in America. We do not conceive we are to be overborne by the weight of any names, however revered.



Those who were there at the usurpation spoke.

Those who cover it up speak now.

A coincidence that Madison is elected Monarch of the Colonies and then the Second Bank of the United States (colonies under the Bank of England) happen to be resurrected?

What are the odds in Vegas?


Yes, but--

the Constitution that was ratified was not the nationalist vision that Madison had actually wanted, per the Virginia Plan. It was still more of a federal system with more decentralized emphasis on the States, at least as it was understood and sold at the time of ratification.

Even with the supposed safeguards and checks and balances with the Constitution, look at how things have morphed into a nationalist situation anyway, through the abuses of court interpretation (Marshall, on down) and the abuse of such things like the 'general welfare clause' or the 'interstate commerce clause' -- just as folks like Patrick Henry warned about.

OK, the caveman had a smaller

OK, the caveman had a smaller central government than the 2% of GDP we had before 1913. But in 1913, the states chose to throw out the 2% model and create a monster. You can't blame 1913 on James Madison, he warned them.

* despite John Marshall, federal spending in 1912 was only 1.75% of GDP.

* Patrick Henry did not predict the specific cause of why the federal would grow out of control after 1913, namely that the states would vote to it more power.

* Madison wanted the smallest possible central government that could maintain justice in society. Would it be 1% of GDP? 2% of GDP? 5%? 10%? In 1787, no one knew exactly where that lay. After 1788, the Founding Founders realized that they got it just about exactly right. 2% in peacetime and 4% in wartime is the correct answer.

Thomas Jefferson 1796, 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Ron Paul 1988, 2008, 2012; Rand Paul 2016.

Not just...

...% of GDP that matters, though -- it's the fundamental power structure within the society: either a strong, national central government with the States diminished to subservient status, or the States retaining primary authority, with a few powers delegated to the federal body (but which powers the sovereign States could choose to no longer delegate, through nullification or secession if the federal government abused such delegation). Madison and Hamilton were favoring the former nationalist vision, with weakened States.

Thankfully, they didn't get their way entirely, at the outset; but it didn't much matter, because they started working on nationalizing things anyway, even in the Washington administration, despite all the promises and assurances that Congress would never go beyond its Article I Section 8 list of enumerated powers, and despite the 10th Amendment.

Madison ended up following through with his promises that a Bill of Rights would be ratified, to his credit; and he ended up making good republican, pro-States arguments against Hamilton's bank and the Alien and Sedition Acts -- but he flip-flopped back and abandoned such principles in establishing the second bank.

He seemed to be kind of all over the map -- inconsistent. But I guess people change over time; so maybe that's it.

Just curious -- would you have rather that Madison's nationalist Virginia Plan been the Constitution than what we actually got? Are you glad the Virginia Plan was defeated?

The federal government was

The federal government was weak prior to 1913 because the states selected the senate. The senate in turn confirmed the Supreme Court and the entire judiciary, not to mention the cabinet and all the ambassadors. Plus they had to confirm what the House did on legislation for it to become law. That's why federal spending averaged only 2% of GDP prior to 1913. The nationalization process was actually reversing in the period from 1877 until 1912 with the federal government gradually getting smaller each year.

* if we could throw out what we have now, and put in the Virginia Plan, the size of the federal government would be reduced by 90%, from 25% of GDP to 2.5% of GDP. I would take it. Would you?

* Madison was consistent in his principles, he was looking for the proper balance. It turns out 2% is just right, 3% is too big, and 1% is too small.

Thomas Jefferson 1796, 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Ron Paul 1988, 2008, 2012; Rand Paul 2016.

I wholeheartedly...

...agree that 1913 was a key year; but you can't ignore the nationalist efforts that came before that, that attempted to weaken the sovereign States, from the beginning with the efforts of Hamilton, Madison, etc. and later on down through Lincoln and the Republican efforts during Reconstruction.

I'd rather have our current Constitution, which at least on paper was obviously attempting to maintain decentralized power in the States (in spite of the distortions and abuses since it was ratified), than Madison's nationalist model, demasculating the States into subservience to the central authority. I favor Jefferson's views of federalism over Madison's views of nationalism.

So which Madison do you side with?:

- the Madison who was against Hamilton's central bank, arguing that it violated Article I Section 8

- the Madison who flipped and accepted the idea of a central bank in order to finance the debt from the War of 1812

How are you claiming the two positions are consistent?

I side with Madison #1 against Madison #2.

I side with all 5 James

I side with all 5 James Madison's (you missed three of them):

1. (1790) Madison was right to oppose Hamilton as a dangerous experiment.

2. (1811) Madison was right to let the 1st bank expire because the national debt was way down and Madison thought a central bank dangerous during a probable coming war. In hindsight, this was an incredible decision regarding restraint of power to make.

3. (1815) Madison vetoed the 2nd bank bill because it added new powers not found in the 1st bank. This was done in January before the war ended and is an incredible decision regarding the restraint of power.

4. (1816) Madison signed a temporary bank bill to pay off the debt from the War of 1812 that included no new powers.

5. (1832) In a secret meeting with Andrew Jackson, who traveled to Virginia prior to the election, Madison agreed not to object when Jackson ended the bank after he was re-elected. Since the debt was paid off the bank was no longer needed. Nicholas Trist facilitated the coordination between Jackson and Madison from 1828 until 1834. Trist was a lifelong acolyte of Madison who walked and breathed James Madison his entire life. Trist was Jackson's private secretary 1818-34 and closest advisor as Jackson made little use if his cabinet. Trist was the grandson of Mrs. House who provided Madison lodging in 1787 when he wrote the Constitution. Trist later negotiated the end of the Mexican War even though he was ordered not to by James Polk. This was a great decision by Madison to not hold onto the bank for nostalgic reasons. Note - in 1832, presidential candidate Henry Clay also went to see Madison looking for an endorsement and support to continue the bank. Madison did not give it.

(1913) Under the principles of Madison, the bank of 1913 never should have been created. It was unneeded as the US economy was now gigantic, it was not temporary, it had secret bondholders, it had no public ownership, was not audited, and had other new powers not found in the earlier banks and hence was unconstitutional.

Thomas Jefferson 1796, 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Ron Paul 1988, 2008, 2012; Rand Paul 2016.

If position #1

against Hamilton and the first bank was that it was unconstitutional to establish a bank at all since it is not in the enumerated powers, then if he is later tolerating any kind of national bank at all, he is abandoning or ignoring his earlier argument. Either way, it's inconsistent.

The potential power to create

The potential power to create a federal bank rested upon the necessary & proper clause in relation to the power to coin & regulate the value of money. Its a gray area. In 1790, the gray area was decided by George Washington, setting a precedent for only the SPECIFIC powers of the 1st bank. Hence, any powers in a federal bank not found in the 1st bank are unconstitutional. The Federal Reserve of 1913 is unconstitutional. Washington, and later Madison set a precedent that should have prevented the Federal Reserve, and did prevent it for 125 years.

Thomas Jefferson 1796, 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Ron Paul 1988, 2008, 2012; Rand Paul 2016.

And there...

...you have it --

When you start relying on precedents which deviate from the Constitution as it was presented and sold to the people of each State at the time of ratification, and start using the 'general welfare' clause here and the 'necessary and proper' clause there, and the 'interstate commerce' clause over there to be malleable gray areas, you end up with the widening rift between the actual Constitution as ratified and the Frankenstein distortion of it that can be made to 'justify' anything. These are the very things the anti-federalists like Patrick Henry warned about and which the nationalists like Hamilton and Madison argued would not happen.

But again Jefferson and Madison were against a national bank because they did not agree with Hamilton that the 'necessary and proper' clause could be used in this way to circumvent the specific listing of powers. I agree with them on this. Also, if something is unconstitutional, precedence does not make it constitutional. Amending the Constitution might make it so.

This is one thing I admire about Andrew Jackson as well, despite his faults -- he did not let precedence arguments stand in the way of him exercising his veto power in accordance with whether he thought something was truly Constitutional or not.

The interstate commerce

The interstate commerce clause was not used by George Washington to justify the bank. Nor was the general welfare clause. The necessary and proper clause was used. Whether it was proper to do so was a gray area as some of the Founders were on one side and others were on the other side. Either way, it doesn't matter because it was just a temporary bank used to pay off the debts incurred while gaining our independence.

Thomas Jefferson 1796, 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Ron Paul 1988, 2008, 2012; Rand Paul 2016.


...I was just including those with the more general distortion of the Constitution that has occurred since ratification, the 'necessary and proper' clause being the one applicable to the bank, as it was the one which Hamilton used as the excuse, Jefferson and Madison arguing against that abuse of the clause. I agree with Jefferson and Madison here.

And it does matter whether the federal government unconstitutionally violates its powers, temporarily or not. To not care about that seems to be more of an ends-justifies-the-means, utilitarian approach.

The general distortion of the

The general distortion of the Constitution did not begin until 1913. In 1912, federal spending was just 1.75% of GDP, about the same as it was under the Articles of Confederation. In 1913, the states consolidated the government.

* Actually, a temporary violation of the Constitution is not as bad as a permanent violation.

* The bank bill was not clearly a violation of the Constitution, it turns on whether you think it was necessary and proper to do it to enact powers found in Article I, section 8.

* A similar industry is insurance, but federal regulation of insurance has no Article I, section 8 related powers. Hence, insurance remained state regulated until 1944.

Thomas Jefferson 1796, 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Ron Paul 1988, 2008, 2012; Rand Paul 2016.

Then I guess...

...you are agreeing with Hamilton's argument for the first bank and disagreeing with Jefferson and Madison that it was a violation or distortion of the Constitution. And we will just have to agree to disagree for now at least.

Best wishes for your presentation -- great topic :)

Peace and blessings to you

No, I said it was a gray

No, I said it was a gray area. I am with Madison and Jefferson, but not everyone agreed and in the end, Madison was outvoted.

Thomas Jefferson 1796, 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Ron Paul 1988, 2008, 2012; Rand Paul 2016.

Founding Father Monopoly?

The Federalists were not the Anti-Federalists.

There were two groups before, during, and after the Revolutionary War.

Here is a list of 8000 of one group:


Here too:

According to the Department of Defense, there were 4,435 battle deaths during the Revolutionary War. The most reliable estimate of prison ship casualties is 11,500. Although these men could be released if they joined the British forces, all refused and purchased your freedom at enormous personal costs.

Common Sense by Thomas Paine
The Declaration of Independence
From 1776 through to 1787
13 Independent Republics, constitutions, bills of rights, trial by jury, self-defense units, 13, confederated into a voluntary association for mutual defense against the invasion of the criminal Red Coats who invade, plunder, rape, torture, and mass murder for fun and profit.

Then the local aristocrats who grew fat with profits from the war hold a secret meeting in Philadelphia for the purpose of adjusting The Articles of Confederation.

Those criminals, those "founders," created a satellite of the Bank of England, with that so called Constitution.

Two groups of founders.

1. Those who would rather die than deal with the devilish Red Coats.

2. Those who were of the same color as the Red Coats; but hiding behind a false color.

Main actors of the so called (false) Federalist Party:

1. Robert Morris
2. Alexander Hamilton
3. George Washington
4. John Adams
5. James Madison

To name only 5.

Opposing the (false) Federalist Party were those who would rather die than deal with the criminal Red Coats.

1. Robert Yates
2. Luther Martin
3. George Mason
4. Patrick Henry
5. John Lansing

Reading Material:








Quote from 7___________________________
But Hamilton wanted to go farther than debt assumption. He believed a funded national debt would assist in establishing public credit. By funding national debt, Hamilton envisioned the Congress setting aside a portion of tax revenues to pay each year's interest without an annual appropriation. Redemption of the principal would be left to the government's discretion. At the time Hamilton gave his Report on Public Credit, the national debt was $80 million. Though such a large figure shocked many Republicans who saw debt as a menace to be avoided, Hamilton perceived debt's benefits. "In countries in which the national debt is properly funded, and the object of established confidence," explained Hamilton, "it assumes most of the purposes of money." Federal stock would be issued in exchange for state and national debt certificates, with interest on the stock running about 4.5 percent. To Republicans the debt proposals were heresy. The farmers and planters of the South, who were predominantly Republican, owed enormous sums to British creditors and thus had firsthand knowledge of the misery wrought by debt. Debt, as Hamilton himself noted, must be paid or credit is ruined. High levels of taxation, Republicans prognosticated, would be necessary just to pay the interest on the perpetual debt. Believing that this tax burden would fall on the yeoman farmers and eventually rise to European levels, Republicans opposed Hamilton's debt program.

To help pay the interest on the debt, Hamilton convinced the Congress to pass an excise on whiskey. In Federalist N. 12, Hamilton noted that because "[t]he genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise law," such taxes would be little used by the national government. In power, the Secretary of the Treasury soon changed his mind and the tax on the production of whiskey rankled Americans living on the frontier. Cash was scarce in the West and the Frontiersmen used whiskey as an item of barter.


The curious thing about James Madison can be seen in the chronological order as follows:

1. 1787
The British return with a covert operation known as a Con Con in Philadelphia intending to re-Monopolize the 13 colonies into one central banking fraud and extortion wing, or satellite, of the Bank of England.

2. 1789
Judiciary Act, to nullify trial by jury, of the people, for the people, and by the people, replacing trial by jury with Admiralty (English) Courts under false names of supreme dictatorship.

3. 1790
Rhode Island RAT-ifies the criminal take over as the last independent republic to fall victim to the false advertizement campaign run by the criminals who called themselves The Federalist PARTY.

4. 1790
Naturalization Act, a cover up name for marking the names and whereabouts of the victims, a head count.

5. 1791
The First Fraudulent Central Bank Scheme of the United States, directly linking the satellite bank with the supposed "enemies" The British and the Bank of England

6. 1794
The new King Proclaims the Whiskey Rebellion Proclamation, a false name for conscripting an army of slaves to invade the former independent Republic of Pennsylvania to crush the spirit of Liberty, enforce a criminal tax, and end a money competition then gaining currency as whiskey.

7. 1798
Alien and Sedition Acts, the British influence (supposed Enemies) the second American King, another False Federalist named John Adams, to punish anyone daring to side with the French (those who aided the defeat of the English in the so called Revolutionary War), and anyone daring to criticize the False Federalist, criminal, take over, for the British Bank of England, by those False Federalists. This by the way is done despite the Bill of Rights and the 1st, 5th, and 7th Amendments.

8. 1798-1799
The Rebels (against the criminal British and their minions running the American take-over) gain the services of a former Federalist named Madison, and both Madison and Jefferson pen resolutions intending to re-establish a working Federal design to push back against the Monopoly, or Monarchy, established by the traitors with their Con Con and other crimes.

9. 1800
Jefferson, a Democrat, a Republican, a Democrat-Republican, proponent of Federal government (labeled as an anti-federalist) is voted into the position of Monarch of America, foiling the plans of the False Federalists.

10. 1811
Jefferson, the true Federalists, end the First Criminal Fraud Bank, Central Bank, of the United (British) States (colonies).

11. 1812
Madison, a Democrat, a Republican, a Democrat-Republican, former False Federalist, turning his coat from Red, back to Blue, is voted in as the second "anti-federalist" Monarch.

11. 1812
The British attack. The true Federalists defend.

12. 1816
The Second Criminal Central Banking Fraud, Satellite of The Bank of England is established in the British Colonies where the people still think they have a true Federation. Madison turns his coat once again.

So called (false) Federalists held the newly created "Consolidated" government that usurped the voluntary federation from Washington to Adams, and then the Democrat Republican Party retook the high command of the new Monarchy (satellite) with Jefferson elected as President.

All those guys are in the class of the rich and powerful by the way; not the ordinary cannon fodder types.

So...Madison just so happens to be the next Chief and suddenly the Red Coats are burning the White House, and the Second Bank of the United States opens for legal fraud business as usual?


Red Coats = (false) Federalists

It just so happens that while those clowns are "in office" there is The First Bank of the United States, an army of Lawyers and Judges pushing the Americanized version of Admiralty Law, Slave Trade goes wide open despite Rhode Island and Pennsylvania having already outlawed the dirty business (before the 1787 usurpation at the Con Con), and now any slave running away anywhere there is a ready army of more slaves (conscripts) ready to return them to their owners. It just so happens that now all the people in America are buddy buddy with The British, so much so that a law has to be enacted to censor anyone daring to side with The French (Statue of Liberty, help with the Revolutionary War)against The British?


Right after The British slaughter over 10,000 of the best and brightest in America, we the people are all in bed with the same criminals?

It just so happens that so many of we the people have had enough of Whiskey Proclamations, Alien and Sedition Acts, Excisemen, liars, fraud money, that a Thomas Jefferson is elected and the First Bank of the United States expires, by coincidence?

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison had already collaborated to reign in the overreaching, dictatorial, new regime who worked so well to destroy the independence of each autonomous Republic, and then when Thomas Jefferson steps down, our good buddies The British return to reclaim their Might making Right business including another run at a Central Fraud Bank under this character Madison?

One Monopoly of Founders?

Antifederalist No. 38


This was an essay by "BRUTUS JUNIOR" which appeared in The New-York Journal on November 8, 1787. Two articles by "A COUNTRYMAN" were written by DeWitt Clinton, and appeared also in the New York Journal on January 10 and February 14, 1788.

I have read with a degree of attention several publications which have lately appeared in favor of the new Constitution; and as far as I am able to discern, the arguments (if they can be so termed) of most weight, which are urged in its favor, may be reduced to the two following:

1st. That the men who formed it, were wise and experienced; that they were an illustrious band of patriots, and had the happiness of their country at heart; that they were four months deliberating on the subject, and therefore, it must be a perfect system.

2nd. That if the system be not received, this country will be without any government, and of consequence, will be reduced to a state of anarchy and confusion, and involved in bloodshed and carnage; and in the end, a government will be imposed upon us, not the result of reason and reflection, but of force and usurpation. As I do not find ' that either Cato or the Centinel, Brutus, or the Old Whig, or any other writer against this constitution, have undertaken a particular refutation of this new species of reasoning, I take the liberty of offering to the public, through the channel of your paper, the few following animadversions on the subject; and, the rather, because I have discovered, that some of my fellow citizens have been imposed upon by it.

With respect to the first,-it will be readily perceived that it precludes all investigation of the merits of the proposed constitution, and leads to an adoption of the plan without inquiring whether it be good or bad. For if we are to infer the perfection of this system from the characters and abilities of the men who formed it, we may as well determine to accept it without any inquiry as with. A number of persons in this [New York] as well as the other states, have, upon this principle, determined to submit to it without even reading or knowing its contents.

But supposing the premises from which this conclusion is drawn to be just, it then becomes essential in order to give validity to the argument, to inquire into the characters of those who composed this body, that we may determine whether we can be justified in placing such unbounded confidence in them.

It is an invidious task, to call in question the characters of individuals, especially of such as are placed in illustrious stations. But when we are required implicitly to submit our opinions to those of others, from a consideration that they are so wise and good as not to be liable to err, and that too in an affair which involves in it the happiness of ourselves and our posterity, every honest man will justify a decent investigation of characters in plain language.

It is readily admitted that many individuals who composed this body were men of the first talents and integrity in the union. It is at the same time, well known to every man, who is but moderately acquainted with the characters of the members, that many of them are possessed of high aristocratic ideas, and the most sovereign contempt of the common people; that not a few were strongly disposed in favor of monarchy; that there were some of no small talents and of great influence, of consummate cunning and masters of intrigue, whom the war found poor or in embarrassed circumstances, and left with princely fortunes acquired in public employment.

That there were others who were young, ardent, and ambitious, who wished for a government corresponding with their feelings, while they were destitute of experience ... in political researches; that there were not a few who were gaping for posts of honor and emolument-these we find exulting in the idea of a change which will divert places of honor, influence and emolument, into a different channel, where the confidence of the people will not be necessary to their acquirement. It is not to be wondered at, that an assembly thus composed should produce a system liable to well founded objections, and which will require very essential alterations. We are told by one of themselves (Mr.[James] Wilson of Philadelphia) the plan was [a] matter of accommodation, and it is not unreasonable to suppose, that in this accommodation, principles might be introduced which would render the liberties of the people very insecure.

I confess I think it of no importance what are the characters of the framers of this government, and therefore should not have called them in question, if they had not been so often urged in print, and in conversation, in its favor. It ought to rest on its own intrinsic merit. If it is good, it is capable of being vindicated; if it is bad, it ought not to be supported. It is degrading to a freeman, and humiliating to a rational one, to pin his faith on the sleeve of any man, or body of men, in an affair of such momentous importance. In answer to the second argument, I deny that we are in immediate danger of anarchy and commotions. Nothing but the passions of wicked and ambitious men will put us in the least danger on this head. Those who are anxious to precipitate a measure will always tell us that the present is the critical moment; now is the time, the crisis is arrived, and the present minute must be seized. Tyrants have always made use of this plea; but nothing in our circumstances can justify it. The country is in profound peace, and we are not threatened by invasions from any quarter. The governments of the respective states are in the full exercise of their powers; and the lives, the liberty, and property of individuals are protected. All present exigencies are answered by them. It is true, the regulation of trade and a competent provision for the payment of the interest of the public debt is wanting; but no immediate commotion will arise from these; time may be taken for calm discussion and deliberate conclusions. Individuals are just recovering from the losses and embarrassment sustained by the late war. Industry and frugality are taking their station, and banishing from the community, idleness and prodigality. Individuals are lessening their private debts, and several millions of the public debt is discharged by the sale of the western territory. There is no reason, therefore, why we should precipitately and rashly adopt a system, which is imperfect or insecure. We may securely deliberate and propose amendments and alterations. I know it is said we cannot change for the worse; but if we act the part of wise men, we shall take care that we change for the better. It will be labor lost, if after all our pains we are in no better circumstances than we were before.

I have seen enough to convince me very fully, that the new constitution is a very bad one, and a hundred-fold worse than our present government. And I do not perceive that any of the writers in favor of it (although some of them use a vast many fine words, and show a great deal of learning) are able to remove any of the objections which are made against it. Mr. [James] Wilson, indeed, speaks very highly of it, but we have only his word for its goodness; and nothing is more natural than for a mother to speak well of her own bantling, however ordinary it may be. He seems, however, to be pretty honest in one thing-where he says, "It is the nature of man to pursue his own interest, in preference to the public good"'-for they tell me he is a lawyer, and his interest then makes him for the new government, for it will be a noble thing for lawyers. Besides, he appears to have an eye to some high place under it, since he speaks with great pleasure of the places of honor and emolument being diverted to a new channel by this change of system.

As to Mr. Publius [The Federalist], I have read a great many of his papers, and I really cannot find out what he would be at. He seems to me as if he was going to write a history, so I have concluded to wait and buy one of his books, when they come out. The only thing I can understand from him, as far as I have read, is that it is better to be united than divided-that a great many people are stronger than a few-and that Scotland is better off since the union with England than before. And I think, he proves too, very clearly, that the fewer nations there are in the world, the fewer disputes [there] will be about the law of nations-and the greater number that are joined in one government, the abler will they be to raise ships and soldiers, and the less need for fighting. But I do not learn that any body denies these matters, or that they have any thin- to do with the new constitution, Indeed I am at a loss to know, whether Mr. Publius means to persuade us to return back to the old government, and make ourselves as happy as Scotland has by its union, or to accept of the new constitution, and get all the world to join with us, so as to make one large government. It would certainly, if what he says is true, be very convenient for Nova-Scotia and Canada, and, for ought I know, his advice will have great weight with them. I have also read several other of the pieces, which appear to be wrote by some other little authors, and by people of little consequence, though they seem to think themselves men of importance, and take upon them grand names such as . . . Caesar,' . . . Now Mr. Caesar do[es] not depend so much on reasoning as upon bullying. He abuses the people very much, and if he spoke in our neighborhood as impudently as he writes in the newspapers, I question whether he would come off with whole bones. From the manner he talks of the people, he certainly cannot be one of them himself. I imagine he has lately come over from some old country, where they are all Lords and no common people. If so, it would be as well for him to go back again as to meddle himself with our business, since he holds such a bad opinion of us.


The Federalist, as he terms himself, or Publius, puts one in mind of some of the gentlemen of the long robe, when hard pushed, in a bad cause, with a rich client. They frequently say a great deal which does not apply; but yet, if it will not convince the judge nor jury, may, perhaps, help to make them forget some part of the evidence, embarrass their opponent, and make the audience stare, besides increasing the practice.



The War of 1812 was more

The War of 1812 was more successful than the Revolution:

a) fewer US combat deaths, only 2000 in the War of 1812.

b) 4 largest cities occupied by British for long periods of time in Revolution (Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Charleston). In War on 1812, only Washington DC was occupied for one day and it was not close to being a top-4 city.

c) War of 1812 produced a lasting peace that exists to this day.

d) War of 1812 resulted in free trade on Great Lakes, Mississippi River, Gulf of Mexico, West Indies, Atlantic Ocean, and Mediterranean Sea.

e) no hyperinflation during the War of 1812.

Thomas Jefferson 1796, 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Ron Paul 1988, 2008, 2012; Rand Paul 2016.

deacon's picture

I was under the impression

The war of 1812 happened because we didn't start to pay the war debt of 1776 back to england,who financed both sides of that war

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

The US was paying the debt

The US was paying the debt back, but at the same time the British Empire was badgering the US on the high seas, hijacking about 400 US vessels and kidnapping about 8000 seamen. The People of the US finally had enough and fought back.

The British did use a divide and conquer strategy by trying to benefit the NE states.

Thomas Jefferson 1796, 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Ron Paul 1988, 2008, 2012; Rand Paul 2016.

deacon's picture

Kind of my point

And kind of not,taken a step further,why did the british finance both sides of a war they were fighting in? A war that if they intended to win outright,would have been easier if they didn't finance the other party involved?
If we did win our independence from england,then why were they still here in 1812? and if not here,why did they come back,if we indeed kicked their behinds the first time around?
My take on it,is this,we did not win that war,we are an annex of england,and still do their bidding around the world,taken a bit further,the vatican owns england,england owns us,and now we have a triangle of evil,where one dictates the spiritual side,one writes the laws,and one fights to uphold all the lies
The taxes paid to the IRS (which was founded around the same time as the fed res) was supposed to pay that war debt back,now if we had won that war outright,then why didn't we as a nation just flip them off,give the bronx cheer or just snub england,and say,we aren't paying that debt back,to the victors,goes the spoils,But one of the very first things that happened was the fed gov going after whisky producers for a tax.(otherwise known as the " whisky rebellion"
It seems to me,if we had such a great navy,that kicked their butts(as you stated) we could have done that same thing on the high seas,without them ever coming here again
America had such a great founding,that we had a better navy than ones who have had a navy for more years that our nation was around?

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

The crash came in 1819.

Murray Rothbard wrote about it.

Free includes debt-free!

wasn't much of a crash given

wasn't much of a crash given that the US economy went from 0.8% of the world's total manufacturing output in 1800 to 2.4% in 1830. Rothbard left that out of his book. Hmmm?

Thomas Jefferson 1796, 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Ron Paul 1988, 2008, 2012; Rand Paul 2016.

good post Josf



Working on trial by jury business:


Is there a reading list. Will there be a you-tube?

The federal government tripled the debt but never got their hand on the expected loot.

1812 $45,209,738
1813 $55,962,828
1814 $81,487,846
1815 $99,833,660
1816 $127,334,934

Priced in US Silver Dollars

Free includes debt-free!

Federal spending during the

Federal spending during the War of 1812 peaked at only 3.86% of GDP. Today, that would represent an annual budget cut of $3 trillion.

Thomas Jefferson 1796, 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Ron Paul 1988, 2008, 2012; Rand Paul 2016.