The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: Please write back anytime.

(See in situ)

Please write back anytime.


Very few people, in my experience, reach a point at which the need for accurate information on this subject overpowers the hubris associated with the earning of knowledge.

I have an iron in the fire, a paying gig that must be done very soon, so I want to get this reply sent, before returning and diving into those links you posted.

I can point you to my paper trail concerning the development of my viewpoints on the questions we appear to be finding contentious, and therefore worthy of closer inspection in my opinion.

The links can be published here to those sources after I get my work done. The one very good source I have on Hamilton's deceit, a known Nationalist, confessed by his own words, also known, or A.K.A., as a Monarchist, is a book that was censored at the time, with a gag order on the gathering in Philadelphia, and that book is titled:

Secret Proceedings and Debates of the Constitutional Convention, 1787
Robert Yates (Compiler), John Lansing (Compiler)

One other eye opener, to me at least, was the speech by Patrick Henry in opposition to the Ratification of the Constitution during the Ratification process.

This line in particular:

"The fate of this question and of America may depend on this. Have they said, We, the states? Have they made a proposal of a compact between states? If they had, this would be a confederation. It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns, sir, on that poor little thing — the expression, We, the people, instead of the states, of America. I need not take much pains to show that the principles of this system are extremely pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous. Is this a monarchy, like England — a compact between prince and people, with checks on the former to secure the liberty of the latter? Is this a confederacy, like Holland — an association of a number of independent states, each of which retains its individual sovereignty? It is not a democracy, wherein the people retain all their rights securely. Had these principles been adhered to, we should not have been brought to this alarming transition, from a confederacy to a consolidated government. We have no detail of these great considerations, which, in my opinion, ought to have abounded before we should recur to a government of this kind. Here is a resolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain. It is radical in this transition; our rights and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the states will be relinquished: and cannot we plainly see that this is actually the case? The rights of conscience, trial by jury, liberty of the press, all your immunities and franchises, all pretensions to human rights and privileges, are rendered insecure, if not lost, by this change, so loudly talked of by some, and inconsiderately by others."
June 5, 1788

On exit I propose to focus some interest on the past as being instructive but to divide that interest toward practical, pressing, or even dire current matters, if you care to, and work on something illustrative, by way of proposition, concerning legal money matters.

I don't know exactly how to bridge the gap from history and learning to action and progress, not without help, if the idea is to find agreement on that general purpose.

I can propose an intermediate step as follows:

Accurate understanding of history (a process of learning)
Invention of competitive government (a process of applying knowledge)
Competing in the free market of government (forcing quality up and cost down)

I may be stretching the limits of effective conversation (often the case)

2 Sources

Opposition to Ratification

Secret Proceedings

Either the information in those sources are valid or not, I can't see much room for ambiguity.