What did the Founding Fathers want?

Originally posted by onthedownlow
reply to post by frazzle

 

Article Four, section Four? So it is established the each state is guaranteed a Republican form of Government, thus handing Article One to the states. Article I;9:8 in a sense establishes our freedoms, does it not? Anyhow, nicepost- but I sense that you are pressing an agenda, the same as everyone I supose.

What is meant by "a republican form of government" other than forbidding any state from setting up a direct democracy?

The republican form of government has remained a constant in U.S. politics. State constitutions follow the federal constitution in dividing powers among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches.

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

Originally posted by alldaylong
reply to post by onthedownlow

 

You must be very nieve not to realise the true motive of the American Revolution. A revolution against tyranny is usually lead by the poor, down trodden serfs against the hierarchy. Examples being the Russian and French Revolutions ( And also the English Civil War).
What did we have in America? A revolution being led by the wealthy and landed gentry.

Or simply it set out to curtail or advance the power of one particular organisation, namely the East India Company.

I would like to direct you to one chappy, called Thomas Paine and the intrigue that surrounds him, now when Thomas Paine was in my neck of the Woods on the Southern Coast of England he started his political writing, however this was done on the explicit instructions of the Excise (Tax) office in London..

We have an interesting conundrum here..

A more senior Excise Commissioner (George Lewis Scott) introduced Thomas Paine to Benjamin Franklin, George Lewis Scott was not just more senior, he was also the Kings Tutor, and named George Lewis after King George I due to close family ties with the Royal household i,e his Godmother was Princess Sophie, Consort of Great Britain.

And it gets more interesting, as another local figure appears at this time, namely General Gage, Commander of British Troops in North America was also back here at his family seat in Firle which is just outside Lewes and as such played an important part in Lewes life, Lewes life was governed in part by the Society of 12, which is more like a Witan and has overseen Lewes since *time out of minde* i.e prior to the imposition of Admiralty Law.

Thomas Paine was also a member of this society at the time General Gage was back in Lewes. General Gage also served alongside George Washington, and was back in England at the time of the Boston Tea party that was after all about Excise duties and we come full circle.

I say curtail or advance as I have no idea on the answer, although I am following a local society that is digging deeper into this than I. Some interesting documents are coming to light.. although I doubt there contents/conclusions will be seen outside of Britain.

reply to post by thoughtsfull


What i find strange about Paine was his motives. He played a role both in the French and American Revolutions. However the French Revolution was to overthrow the ruling classes. In America he sided with the wealthy land owners. Such a strange contradiction of beliefs.

Originally posted by alldaylong
reply to post by onthedownlow

 

You must be very nieve not to realise the true motive of the American Revolution. A revolution against tyranny is usually lead by the poor, down trodden serfs against the hierarchy. Examples being the Russian and French Revolutions ( And also the English Civil War).
What did we have in America? A revolution being led by the wealthy and landed gentry.

Behold the poor downtrodden serfs.

At the time of the convention, 13 men were merchants: Blount, Broom, Clymer, Dayton, Fitzsimons, Shields, Gilman, Gorham, Langdon, Robert Morris, Pierce, Sherman, and Wilson.

* Seven were major land speculators: Blount, Dayton, Fitzsimons, Gorham, Robert Morris, Washington and Wilson.

* Eleven speculated in securities on a large scale: Bedford, Blair, Clymer, Dayton, Fitzsimons, Franklin, King, Langdon, Robert Morris, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, and Sherman.

* Fourteen owned or managed slave-operated plantations or large farms: Bassett, Blair, Blount, Butler, Carroll, Jenifer, Jefferson, Madison, Mason, Charles Pinckney, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Rutledge, Spaight, and Washington.

Most of the members were either born into the wealthy aristocracy or married into it, or both. Only a few started out on the lower rungs of society and more than a few of those who were, were raised by wealthy relatives or sponsors. These particular delegates wouldn't have been selected to participate in the secret meetings if not for their financial and social standing, any more than they would be in today's political environment. It takes money and influence and it always has.

My purpose here isn't to stomp on the founders for being rich, or spoiled or selfish, although some of them undoubtedly were, but rather to point out that for 250 years we've been adding scope and depth to a plan that was deeply flawed from its origination. It couldn't be otherwise since it was written by flawed human beings (there aren't any other kind.)

The delegates who were sent to Philadelphia were instructed to meet "for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation." However, amendment of the Articles required unanimous consent of the states; so the delegates ignored their instructions and began writing a new constitution.

wps.ablongman.com...

reply to post by frazzle
Wow frazzel, you have taken us out into really deep waters

John Langdon resigned from Congress to accept the lucrative position of agent of (captured) prizes for the colony of New Hampshire. He took charge of the sale of all prizes brought into Portsmouth and amassed a fortune on the side by outfitting several privateers of his own.

Very very interesting. He sounds like Bishop Rommney with his Baine Inc.. Pirating the American People though, through offshore hedge funds tax free. Lovely ;(

That pirating was a "private business" for such noble souls is news to me. I was under the impression that it was these type of guys who were the brains behind this business

The Constitution payed off the debts of the colonies by making them federal debts. Without that deal, obviously a move by a faction wanting a central bank, there would be no constitution.

Viginia had payed it's war debt off. The national capital was put in Virginia as an enticement to get Viginia's cooperation.

The Constitutional Convention was originally to fix the Articles of Conferderation, not to create a new government. The Constitution created the Federal Government to be like the United Nations. Each state was a soveriegn nation before the Constitution and maybe until the Civil War.

The Founding Fathers wanted local control, however they also wanted trade and respect abroad, and bigger governments get more respect.

Frazzel you mentioned the book "A Caveat Against Injustice". Well I found this interesting comment regarding it on Amazon.Com which entices me to read it in the future. Sounds like something up my alley of inquiry

First, a little history about A Caveat Against Injustice... This book was published in 1982 by Spencer Judd for author F. Tupper Saussy. He had published another book earlier called The Miracle on Main Street. That book covered the topic of the unconstitutional nature of Federal Reserve Notes and how demanding payment under Article 1, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution was justified. This book was originally written by Roger Sherman in 1752. At the time Mr. Saussy found this book, it had dwindled down to just two copies. As Mr. Saussy's research shows, Roger Sherman is the only person to have signed all four of our country's most important political documents -- The Continental Association of 1774, The Declaration of Independence in 1776, The Articles of Confederation in 1781, and the Constitution in 1787. Quite a feat for a owner of a dry goods store from Connecticut. Mr. Saussy spends the first 25 pages showing the reader his research into why the framers of our Constitution knew that paper money was bad. He supplements his research with quotes from court decisions, from George Washington's letters to the Marquis de LaFayette, all the way to passages from the Bible. The research is straightforward and honest, presented in a clear way, allowing anyone to understand the truth behind the reasons for the creation of our Constitution and how the deliterious effects of paper money were removed when a gold standard was introduced. My personal copy was autographed by the author when I met him 1982. Not only is this a must read, but it should be required reading in all schools. Tupper Saussy died in 2007.

Book

Originally posted by tintin2012
reply to post by frazzle

 

Wow frazzel, you have taken us out into really deep waters

John Langdon resigned from Congress to accept the lucrative position of agent of (captured) prizes for the colony of New Hampshire. He took charge of the sale of all prizes brought into Portsmouth and amassed a fortune on the side by outfitting several privateers of his own.

Very very interesting. He sounds like Bishop Rommney with his Baine Inc.. Pirating the American People though, through offshore hedge funds tax free. Lovely ;(

That pirating was a "private business" for such noble souls is news to me. I was under the impression that it was these type of guys who were the brains behind this business

edit on 20-10-2012 by tintin2012 because: (no reason given)

Caught that part didja? That they would put it right there in his bio was a surprise.

The piracy trade has been the "bain" of the people since the get go. A privateer steals with the permission of a government, a pirate steals for his own benefit, and some did/do both.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
The Constitution payed off the debts of the colonies by making them federal debts. Without that deal, obviously a move by a faction wanting a central bank, there would be no constitution.

Viginia had payed it's war debt off. The national capital was put in Virginia as an enticement to get Viginia's cooperation.

The Constitutional Convention was originally to fix the Articles of Conferderation, not to create a new government. The Constitution created the Federal Government to be like the United Nations. Each state was a soveriegn nation before the Constitution and maybe until the Civil War.

The Founding Fathers wanted local control, however they also wanted trade and respect abroad, and bigger governments get more respect.

edit on 20-10-2012 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)

You're abosulutely right about what they were sent to do and, as usual, they did something completely different. And once they got a toehold, it didn't take all that long to get from the idea of nationhood to the idea of global control and central banking was always at the root of it.

In 1783 Soldiers in the Continental Army hadn't been paid for many months for their services and some of them marched on Congress while it was meeting in Philadelphia. They threatened to hold Congressmen hostage until they were paid but cngress didn't have any money to pay them. When the soldiers threatened to takeover Congress, all but two of the congressmen fled Philadelphia. Can't remember off the top of my head which two stayed but they made some kind of a deal with the soldiers and IIRC, it had something to do with promised tracts of land.

You're also right about the civil war being the cut-off in state sovereignty. It took martial law and the 14th amendment to get it done, but they're like that old cartoon, they always get their man, and in this case all of mankind.

reply to post by tintin2012


I actually met F. Tupper Saussey back in the 80s. I think his best book was "Miracle On Main Street". If you get a chance, read that one!! Of course it got him thrown in jail (well actually it was for contempt of court), but he was quite a guy, brains and an awesome sense of humor.

Originally posted by frazzle


An analogy. Would it be cynical to think that if someone built a building and it collapsed that it would be correct to blame an overweight man walking up the stairs for the collapse, or would you be more inclined to blame those who planned and constructed it?

I don't know. Just how fat was he? And was the floor load rating posted?

Also, are you claiming that if there was fault on the part of those who planned and constructed it that the failure was intended?

Bad analogy, don't you think?

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by frazzle


An analogy. Would it be cynical to think that if someone built a building and it collapsed that it would be correct to blame an overweight man walking up the stairs for the collapse, or would you be more inclined to blame those who planned and constructed it?

I don't know. Just how fat was he? And was the floor load rating posted?

Also, are you claiming that if there was fault on the part of those who planned and constructed it that the failure was intended?

Bad analogy, don't you think?

No, I don't think its a bad analogy. Whenever there's a catastrophic failure its good to look at how that something was constructed whether its a building or a plan for governing. Its fair to say their method of governing has been a catastrophic failure for the people.

It really doesn't matter whether or not I think it was intended, a lot of guys who were there and watched the proceedings believed it was intended:

Antifederalist No. 1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION: A DANGEROUS PLAN OF BENEFIT ONLY TO THE "ARISTOCRATICK COMBINATION" www.wepin.com...

reply to post by frazzle


But what you haven't included is that SEVERAL of those signers, the anti-federalists, signed on the promise that after the constitution was ratified and the confederacy made stable, they would reconvene to enumerate more specifically those ambiguous "clauses" of power at the federal level....they voiced major concerns that the restrictions to those clauses needed to be established and made firm.

The promises made to those anti-federalist signators were not kept. So to point to those clauses and say that it was intended those clauses be used as they have transformed in today's government is wrong. Many of those signators were very specific in their objections to this very thing happening and they got misled and let down.

reply to post by Valhall


I didn't mention it because it seemed to go without saying that such promises are never kept. Nevertheless, I should have included that, so thanks for bringing it up. And of course the Bill of Rights WAS added later, but congress never paid much attention to those amendments since the implied powers gave them all the constitutional authorty they needed to do whatever they wanted, particularly so after the civil war including voiding the BoR little bits at a time.

Funny thing, way back in the OP I used the term "reasonable and prudent" to define the implied powers and felt as stupid as a brick after it was too late to fix it. ROTFL, that was the speed limit in Montana back in the 50s before DPS and the sheriff needed funding really bad. Its "necessary and proper" in constitutional lingo and that clause all by itself covers everything from the federal reserve act, to the patriot act, to NDAA and even the kitchen sink. Whose definition of necessary and proper is the key.

what a great historical read....do you guys know what this means in prophecy....that it's the same from days of old....we're fighting spirits and powers and principalities in lofty places.....in the end....they get ......SQUAT......HA! we win

reply to post by frazzle

In 1783 Soldiers in the Continental Army hadn't been paid for many months for their services and some of them marched on Congress while it was meeting in Philadelphia. They threatened to hold Congressmen hostage until they were paid but cngress didn't have any money to pay them. When the soldiers threatened to takeover Congress, all but two of the congressmen fled Philadelphia. Can't remember off the top of my head which two stayed but they made some kind of a deal with the soldiers and IIRC, it had something to do with promised tracts of land.

The soldiers recieved some form of paper, reciepts for land or severely inflated continental script. Speculators bought it up for pennies on the dollar before in the years before the land became availabe or the money had any value.

Anyway the soldiers didn't get payed and the money abusers used what was taken from the soldiers to fund the First Bank of the United States.

Could be a coinicidence, or minute to minute opportunism.

BTW excellent metaphor about the load of the fat man and the real reason for the collapse.

freedom from king george
freedom to print thier own money (the true cause of the revolution)
slaves
women in the kitchen
land

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
reply to post by frazzle

 

The soldiers recieved some form of paper, reciepts for land or severely inflated continental script. Speculators bought it up for pennies on the dollar before in the years before the land became availabe or the money had any value.

Anyway the soldiers didn't get payed and the money abusers used what was taken from the soldiers to fund the First Bank of the United States.

Could be a coinicidence, or minute to minute opportunism.

BTW excellent metaphor about the load of the fat man and the real reason for the collapse.

Yup yup yup, that's how it went, thanks for the clarification.

The words coincidence and speculators are in direct opposition to one another. Where the latter exists there is nothing of the former.

www.cracked.com...
What did they want? Patrick Henry wanted to torture his wife, and did. Jefferson and Washington wanted to own slaves.
They also wanted to impose Taxation without Representation, as long as they were the beneficiaries.
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Matt1951
www.cracked.com...
What did they want? Patrick Henry wanted to torture his wife, and did. Jefferson and Washington wanted to own slaves.
They also wanted to impose Taxation without Representation, as long as they were the beneficiaries.
en.wikipedia.org...

Patrick Henry didn't sign the constitution so technically he wasn't a "founding father" of the new federal government, however his first wife did suffer some mental issues following childbirth and she died in 1775. Both of Henry's wive's families owned slaves. Matter of fact, just about every wealthy family of that time owned slaves and that's the point, equal my foot. Washington owned slaves and so did Jefferson~ and btw, Jefferson didn't sign the constitution either (he was in France at the time).

Doesn't matter if any of us would have liked any of the delegates personally, Henry was chosen to represent Virginia and after attending the meetings he "smelled a rat" and refused to sign. Here's some of what Patrick Henry had to say about what he thought was the intent of the new government ...

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.

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 ....

www.wepin.com...

So yeah, taxation without representation and a lot more.