Madison vs Hamilton
Madison vs Hamilton
Early in the US' history, there was a debate over what to do w/the debt accumulated during Revolutionary War. The US had some, and each state had its own debt. Hamilton was the 1st US Secretary of the Treasury, and a strong federalist. He envisioned a policy known as assumption, the details are hazy to me, but something along the lines of the US would assume the states' debts. This was supported by some states w/large debts, and opposed by those w/little or none. One of the latter was Virginia.
So James Madison, Rep in Congress for VA, opposed the assumption policy. Though originally a strong federalist himself, authoring the Federalist Papers along w/Hamilton (and a bit from John Jay), and recognized as the reason the US Constitution came to be (tho VA itself was one of the last to ratify and was quite close to denying it), he moved towards less federalism over time, particularly as his devotion to Jefferson grew. He was a major influence in the Congress, and a major reason why Hamilton's policy was denied, multiple times.
However, the issue of where to put the nation's new capital arose, and NYC, Philly and somewhere near Potamac were 3 likely choices. Much wrangling ensued, and a deal struck - the capital on the Potomac (good news for MD and VA), for the assumption policy. Madison and Hamilton were the keys, Madison getting enough votes for assumption, Hamilton getting enough for captial (some northern states of course wanting the capital elsewhere).
But, Madison actually voted against the assumption policy, knowing it would pass anyway. And it passed b/c of his deal behind the scenes. Yet if we were to study his words, and even his actions, at the time, we would think he was against the assumption. Hindsight we know, he actually brought it to pass.
So, from the beginning of this country, we know we could not trust politicians But really, I found it very interesting, b/c behind the scenes, compromise was brokered, yet Madison (Hamilton was not elected, so keeping votes not as important to him) publicly portrayed a different face in order to keep his constituents happy w/his performance. In essence, lying to them for his own benefit.
So James Madison, Rep in Congress for VA, opposed the assumption policy. Though originally a strong federalist himself, authoring the Federalist Papers along w/Hamilton (and a bit from John Jay), and recognized as the reason the US Constitution came to be (tho VA itself was one of the last to ratify and was quite close to denying it), he moved towards less federalism over time, particularly as his devotion to Jefferson grew. He was a major influence in the Congress, and a major reason why Hamilton's policy was denied, multiple times.
However, the issue of where to put the nation's new capital arose, and NYC, Philly and somewhere near Potamac were 3 likely choices. Much wrangling ensued, and a deal struck - the capital on the Potomac (good news for MD and VA), for the assumption policy. Madison and Hamilton were the keys, Madison getting enough votes for assumption, Hamilton getting enough for captial (some northern states of course wanting the capital elsewhere).
But, Madison actually voted against the assumption policy, knowing it would pass anyway. And it passed b/c of his deal behind the scenes. Yet if we were to study his words, and even his actions, at the time, we would think he was against the assumption. Hindsight we know, he actually brought it to pass.
So, from the beginning of this country, we know we could not trust politicians But really, I found it very interesting, b/c behind the scenes, compromise was brokered, yet Madison (Hamilton was not elected, so keeping votes not as important to him) publicly portrayed a different face in order to keep his constituents happy w/his performance. In essence, lying to them for his own benefit.
--Andy
"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur."
Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.
I believe in the One who says there is life after this.
Now tell me how much more open can my mind be?
"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur."
Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.
I believe in the One who says there is life after this.
Now tell me how much more open can my mind be?
- Linna Heartbooger
- Are you not a sine qua non for a redemption?
- Posts: 3894
- Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 11:17 pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
Interesting irony... the whole "means versus ends" thing.
Another irony is ...he was working towards his own state's interest!
And negotiation has to be worth something...
Baffling stuff, I think.
Another irony is ...he was working towards his own state's interest!
And negotiation has to be worth something...
Baffling stuff, I think.
"People without hope not only don't write novels, but what is more to the point, they don't read them.
They don't take long looks at anything, because they lack the courage.
The way to despair is to refuse to have any kind of experience, and the novel, of course, is a way to have experience."
-Flannery O'Connor
"In spite of much that militates against quietness there are people who still read books. They are the people who keep me going."
-Elisabeth Elliot, Preface, "A Chance to Die: The Life and Legacy of Amy Carmichael"
They don't take long looks at anything, because they lack the courage.
The way to despair is to refuse to have any kind of experience, and the novel, of course, is a way to have experience."
-Flannery O'Connor
"In spite of much that militates against quietness there are people who still read books. They are the people who keep me going."
-Elisabeth Elliot, Preface, "A Chance to Die: The Life and Legacy of Amy Carmichael"
- Lady Revel
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 2372
- Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:15 pm
- Location: Daytona Beach
Cybr,
The term "Federalist" changed after the Constitution was ratified. Originally, it simply ment somone who supported ratification. Afterward it became the name of the party who supported increasing Federal power over State power. The "Democratic-Republicans" were those who supported State power over Federal power. Ironically, the DRs are the Ancestors of today's Democratic party.
The term "Federalist" changed after the Constitution was ratified. Originally, it simply ment somone who supported ratification. Afterward it became the name of the party who supported increasing Federal power over State power. The "Democratic-Republicans" were those who supported State power over Federal power. Ironically, the DRs are the Ancestors of today's Democratic party.
"Futility is the defining characteristic of life. Pain is proof of existence" - Thomas Covenant
SS, I agree. I'm just confused, where did that come from? Didn't seem related to my post?
I find it more ironic that the DRs, or Republicans as they called themselves, were all for states' rights, unless a state interfered w/slavery. Like, it wouldn't enforce fugitive slave laws. Then, the federal power trumped the state. It's instructive to know, even from beginning, states' rights meant whatever benefited a given state.
Yes Av, agreed. Probably why, throughout the ages, people recognized large republics don't work.
I find it more ironic that the DRs, or Republicans as they called themselves, were all for states' rights, unless a state interfered w/slavery. Like, it wouldn't enforce fugitive slave laws. Then, the federal power trumped the state. It's instructive to know, even from beginning, states' rights meant whatever benefited a given state.
Yes Av, agreed. Probably why, throughout the ages, people recognized large republics don't work.
--Andy
"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur."
Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.
I believe in the One who says there is life after this.
Now tell me how much more open can my mind be?
"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur."
Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.
I believe in the One who says there is life after this.
Now tell me how much more open can my mind be?
- Hashi Lebwohl
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 19576
- Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm
I wouldn't want all our individual States to be completely united. A little disunity amongst siblings is a good thing as long as it doesn't get out of hand.Avatar wrote:Ah, state power. I sometimes think half your problems rise from that. The states are perhaps not as united as one would expect them to be.
--A
The Tank is gone and now so am I.