Interesting Insight in the Federalist Papers
Posted February 14th, 2008 by LTBjorgaard
output
So I have been reading the Federalist Papers (bought a book years ago but never got to it) and I came accross some interesting insights in them.
In No. 10 Written by Madison which supports the use of republican principles in dealing with factions, I found toward the end the following statement:
"A rage for paper money,for an abolution of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to prevade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it;"
I found interesting how casual the classification of paper money as "improper or wicked" was very telling. I mean this essay had ZERO to do with monetary systems and banking, but of all the evils of faction he thought to point out, he mentions paper money.
In No. 8 written by Hamilton discussing the dangers of standing armies, and their enievitability to arise in absence of a Union, he makes the following remarks:
Speaking of state's with less natural strength (population etc)
"They would, at the same time, be obligated to strengthen the executive arm of government, in doing which their constitutions would acquire a progressive direction towards monarchy. It is the nature of war to increase the executive at the expense of the legislative authority."
Can you imagine if every public official, let alone every citizen was required to have read these essays?
What great understanding of our government we would have. The situations they faced are still completely applicable today. You can really see that they would be dumbfounded at the state of the Republic.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
oh man!
I read #10 last night and thought the same thing about the evils of paper money.
also, he makes some good points defending a republic over a democracy.
Rich in NH
Government is Supposed to be the servant, not Master! We are
slaves to the gov't.
Having attended the College of William and Mary, Jefferson practiced law and served in local government as a magistrate, county lieutenant, and member of the House of Burgesses in his early professional life. As a member of the Continental Congress, he was chosen in 1776 to draft the Declaration of Independence, which has been regarded ever since as a charter of American and universal liberties. The document proclaims that all men are equal in rights, regardless of birth, wealth, or status, and that the government is the servant, not the master, of the people
The Anti-Federalists were right.
Look no further than the Bill of Rights.
I like what George Mason said about the Constitution.
He called it "the most daring attempt to establish a despotic aristocracy among freemen the world has ever seen." Prophetic? Hmmmmm.
They all were.
Remember the Sons of Liberty!
How refreshing!
I thought I was the only one who read the intent of the framers of the Federal Constitution. You should read what is said in the Federal Papers about political parties. There should be none; they only invite faction and confusion with the results you see today.
Nope
You are not the only one.
MADISON WROTE THE CONSTITUTION
WELL NOT QUITE. THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION FAILED TO MAINTAIN A UNION OF STATES. MADISON WROTE THE CONSTITUTION BUT JEFFERSON REFUSED TO SUPPORT IT UNTILL THE BILL OF RIGHTS WAS ADDED. ITS THE BILL OF RIGHTS THAT MAKES THE CONSTITUTION MORE THAN JUST A BLUE PRINT ESTABLISHING THE "FORM" OF GOVERNMENT ORDER. HENCE IN MY BOOK JEFFERSON WROTE THE CONSTITUTION.
He may have been referring
He may have been referring to the demand for LOCAL paper money. There were competing currencies in the various colonies, cities and even some towns printed their own money...
I think
It's safe to say that the Founding Fathers knew that paper money was a scourge. Fiat has ALWAYS failed EVERY TIME IN HISTORY.
It is inherently flawed as a concept and the founders knew this. Unfortunately, their language was not clear enough that it should clearly not be a fiat monopoly.
I agree..
.. that the FF's knew and agreed that fiat paper money was evil.. was just contemplating the context of the quotations...
I recently read a
I recently read a fascinating book, "The History of Money", which gives in great detail the first attempt in history, by the Chinese under the Mongol dynasty, to impose and use paper money. The details are chilling and predictable: all foreigners and traders were required to surrender all gold, silver and gems upon entering China, as well as be registered (and sketched!) at the same time. ALL subjects of the Chinese Empire were demanded, upon pain of death, to accept the official paper money in payment in all transactions. After the inevitable results (inflation and collapse), they were so soured by the experiment that the Chinese returned to their traditional silver standard, and did not attempt another such experiment for 700 years --- until the Communists under Mao took over the mainland. Interestingly, even Mao and hs communist rebels in the 1920's and 1930's were forced to mint silver coins to pay their troops, as the people would accept nothing else.
Yeah thats a possibility...
I wasn't so much commenting on the fact of WHO was advocating paper money, but rather that he considered, and thus generally accepted I assume, that paper money was bad.
Then again you have to say that by paper money he meant fiat currency...Either way, I found it interesting that it was used as an example.
In Context. . .
. . .he appears to be referring to a "rage" for paper money in general, not necessarily "state" money. The point he's making is that, in a union of sovereign states, the rage would be less likely to occur throughout the union than it would be to take hold in a particular state. Little did he know. In any event, before the days of this nation's "dumbed-down" electorate, it was common knowledge that "unbacked" currency was a dangerous thing.