Founding Fathers Quote Friday - Liberty

This is the second installment of a weekly meme called FFQF, or, "Founding Father's Quote Friday" - to read more about what it is you can click here.

This month's theme is Liberty. And today's Founding Father is The Godfather of Founding Fathers, George Washington.

"Liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth."

This quote from President Washington is taken from a letter he wrote to James Madison on March 2, 1788. The letter was written to Madison on the eve of the election of officials from Massachusetts, who were to vote on the ratification of the Constitution.

It was during this time in 1787 and 1788, that Madison, along with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay wrote the famed Federalist Papers. Most of the essays were published in between October 1787 and August 1788. So this letter falls right in the middle of it all.

In reading this quote and knowing it's context I get a sense that Washington was confident in the ratification of the Constitution. Almost reassuring Madison, who was the chief architect of the document, as it was based on his Constitution of Virginia, that his hard work would not go for naught.

By June 21, 1788, the Constitution had been ratified by nine states and it soon went into effect. The rest, as they say... is history.

The letter can be read in its entirety below.

Mount Vernon, March 2, 1788

Sir:

The decision of Massachusetts, notwithstanding its concomitants, is a severe stroke to the opponents of the proposed Constitution in this State; and with the favorable determination of the States which have gone before, and such as are likely to follow after, will have a powerful operation on the Minds of Men who are not actuated more by disappointment, passion and resentment, than they are by moderation, prudence and candor. Of the first description however, it is to be lamented that there are so many; and among them, some who would hazard every thing rather than their opposition should fail, or have the sagacity of their prognostications impeached by an issue contrary to their predictions.

The determination you have come to, will give pleasure to your friends. From those in your County you will learn with more certainty than from me, the expediency of your attending the election in it. With some, to have differed in sentiment, is to have passed the Rubicon of their friendship, altho’ you should go no further. With others (for the honor of humanity) I hope there is more liberality; but the consciousness of having discharged that duty which we owe to our Country, is superior to all other considerations, will place small matters in a secondary point of view.

His Most Ch—n M—y speaks, and acts in a style not very pleasing to republican ears or to republican forms; nor do I think this language is altogether so to the temper of his own subjects at this day. Liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth. The checks he endeavors to give it, however warrantable by ancient usage, will more than probably, kindle a flame, which may not be easily extinguished; tho’ for a while it may be smothered by the Armies at his command, and the Nobility in his interest. When the people are oppressed with Taxes, and have cause to suspect that there has been a is application of their money, the language of despotism is but illy brooked. This, and the mortification which the pride of the Nation has sustained in the affairs of Holland (if one may judge from appearances) may be productive of events which prudence will not mention.

To-morrow, the Elections for delegates to the Convention of this State commences; and as they will tread close upon the heels of each other this month becomes interesting and important. With the most friendly sentiments and affectionate regard &c.

Read More...

Summary only...

Happy Birthday John Jay!

John Jay, the least recognized of the three authors of the Federalist Papers, who was also elected by George Washington as our our Nation's first Supreme Court Justice, was born on this date, December 12, 1745.

To me this wouldn't be news if it were not for the coincidence of one of his more famous causes and another significant historical event which shares this same day.

Let's set the scene with The Federalist Papers.

Written under the pen-name of "Plubius" John Jay is said to have authored 4 of the 85 articles written in support of the ratification of the Constitution approved by the Continental Convention on September 17, 1787. The first of these anonymous articles appeared in the New York Independent Journal on October 27, 1787.

At the time, a federalist was someone who supported "big government", while an anti-federalist believed the power should remain with the people. John Jay, along with Alexander Hamilton and James Madison were staunch proponents of the new Constitution.

They believed a centralized government was essential to expand the United States both commercially and geographically. Only a strong national government, they argued, could effectively negotiate with foreign countries, ensure free trade between states, and create a stable currency.

Thomas Jefferson, probably the most famous anti-federalist believed that big government would take too much power away from the people, which after all was the true meaning of democracy. It was these beliefs that laid the groundwork for our two party system.

Soon, steps were being taken to make sure that John Jay and Alexander Hamilton would win this battle.

It was December 12, 1787, John Jay's 42nd birthday when Pennsylvania became the second state to ratify the Constitution, 4 days after Delaware ratified the same document. Happy Birthday John Jay. I'm sure a pint or two was imbibed in celebration of Pennsylvania's ratification.

On a related note:

Despite both being selected to be in George Washington's cabinet, Hamilton and Jefferson would have to agree to disagree. Hamilton took the seat of Secretary of the Treasury setting a plan for a capitalist United States based on big government and big business. On the other hand Jefferson was chosen as Secretary of State and asked to deal with foreign powers. His first came during the French Revolution when he and Washington disagreed on how to handle the situation.

Read More...

Summary only...

Losing Trust in the American Government.. is nothing new.

If you've lost trust in the Government from Watergate and beyond, then you've been misinformed of the ills of our Government from the many years before that. Not unlike 'democratic' Governments of Ancient Greece and Rome, our United States government has not earned the trust of the American people from day one.

Let's begin with the original writing of the Constitution. The original constitution left a lot to be desired as far as human rights were concerned. The main articles of the constitution did a good job explaining the legislative process but didn't quite complete the job with the inclusion of the rights of the people.

The 'Elastic Clause' as it has come to be named, leaves an open door for the Legislative Branch to do whatever they'd like as long as the deem it 'necessary and proper'. Which is a phrase, much like the rest of the Constitution, that is ambiguous and can be interpreted many different ways.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18, states:

"The Congress shall have the Power... ...To make all laws which shall be
necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all
other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States,
or in any Department or Office thereof."

In other words, if it is NOT written in the constitution, then congress can decide what should be written there if they consider "necessary and proper" for that given moment. Put frankly, it left the door open for them to fill in the blanks.

The second way our original Constitution was not to be trusted was with the absence of our individual rights. The constitution gave plenty of rights to the government, namely the Congress, the Courts and the Executive Branch, but didn't list ANY right of the citizens. Many states would not ratify the constitution for this reason. The authors of the famous Federalist Papers were in favor of this 'big government' and were persuading the public to support the new Constitution.

Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay, just might be the first politicians to try and pull the wool over our heads. Their Federalist Papers tried to convince t he public to ratify the Constitution, as is. But many anti-federalists demanded that individual rights be included in the new constitution, and they were.

Thus, the first 10 Amendments, or changes were made to the Constitution. The Bill of Rights serve as a reminder that the Government can't get away with everything. Had nobody fought for our rights in the 1787 and 1788, when the Constitution was being debated, then our world would be entirely different.

Thank you Thomas Paine!

The list of Government mistrust goes on and on. We could talk about Andrew Jackson and his spoils system, the Election of 1824, the corrupt Presidencies of U.S. Grant and James Garfield, or any politician during the Gilded Age. But I think the strongest argument can be said for the precedent set by the Constitution and its original inability to provide for the common good of all men.

PS. Despite my accusations of the authors of the Federalist Papers, I think the views of all the founding fathers were instrumental in creating our great democracy. Incidentally, Alexander Hamilton is one of my favorite 'fathers' for his efforts with the banking system and the economy.

Read More...

Summary only...

Alexander Hamilton...

Thomas Jefferson's long time rival Alexander Hamilton in my opinion, is one of America's more underrated 'founding fathers'. Only those that truly study history have any idea what he did for the United States. But perhaps we can start with the genius of George Washington to set the stage. There is a new book out by Dorris Kearns Goodwin, called "Team of Rivals", which talks about Abraham Lincoln's political genius of choosing his political opponents for his cabinet. Washington did something very similar. He chose the smartest men with opposing viewpoints so that both sides would be presented in the cabinet.





Hamilton and Jefferson varied in many different ways. Hamilton was a Federalist who wanted a a strong central government, a large national bank and thought that commerce and industry was the way for the US to generate revenue. For this, Hamilton was well received in the more industrialized northern colonies. Jefferson was an anti-federalist/republican who thought a large national bank would not be good for the farming/working man of the time. Jefferson distrusted central government and the rich. (did i mention that Jefferson died in debt?!)

Hamilton's financial system was put in place to get the country out of debt quickly. About 2/3 of the debt was owned by the national government, the other 1/3 by the states. The government and the states owed money to foreign nations and private citizens. Hamilton proposed that the national government would take over all of the states' debts, and then pay the foreign debts with bonds to be payed later. Because a lot of the southerners (who supported Jefferson's ideals) already started to pay off their debt, they became angry with Hamilton because had they known the national government was paying their debt they would not have made attempts to do so. This didn't bode well for Hamilton's reputation in the south.

more on Hamilton later...

Read More...

Summary only...

Thomas Jefferson

When researching American history it is sometimes difficult to imagine yourself in another era doing things those of the past have done. What makes reading and writing about history so fascinating is that you must do this. When reading about Thomas Jefferson, one must try to imagine the liberal mind of the Colonial Era. We can all agree, in this day and age, that slavery is wrong. However, even the most open minded people of the Colonial Era, the Civil War era and so on, thought that slavery was a necessary evil. Sure Thomas Jefferson made some attempts to end slavery. Most notably in his Declaration of Independence, he believed that "all men are created equal," including slaves. However, in order for the Declaration of Independence to be approved and or ratified by all 13 Colonies (actually 12, New York abstained "courteously". New York, having not received word from their state as to how they should vote, For or against independence, abstained from the vote), they had to remove the slavery clause. South Carolina's representative John Rutledge was most adamant about the removal of this clause.

Was Thomas Jefferson truly an abolitionist?

He himself would you lead you to believe that he was, however, I'm of the school that believes he talked the talk, but rarely made any attempt to walk the walk. Where else in Jefferson's life did he make ANY attempt to try and end slavery? His attitude towards slavery was actually hypocritical. He would express his detestation of slavery and was always willing to support any plan to eliminate it. But he did not put forth much effort. It was a lot of wishful thinking.

Thomas Jefferson lived from the labor of slaves. And he lived well. Jefferson was in debt. (perhaps because he didn't support Alexander Hamilton's idea for a national bank, but we'll leave that for another blog.) Jefferson insisted that he would work hard to get himself out of debt, pay off his creditors and then use that to pay his debts of freedom to his own slaves. But, Jefferson never got out of debt, and he never tried very hard to do so. Throughout his life he put emphasis on drinking wine and collecting books, as opposed to getting out of debt to free his slaves. Thomas Jefferson lived very well, but not within his means. Simply go to Monticello to see this.

Additionally, Jefferson, like many liberal thinkers of the time, believed that blacks were racially inferior, and thought it impossible for blacks and whites to live in harmony side by side. Jefferson was also a supporter of extending slavery across the continent to the new lands that he purchased in the Louisiana Purchase. Hardly a man who wants to stop the abomination.

Jefferson was in no way an abolitionist.

Read More...

Summary only...