Alexander Hamilton's Legacy

[Lago_AM3P]

On one hand, he had an extremely progressive view of race relations in his day despite some demonstratable hypocrisy. A lot of his economic views were visionary.

On the other hand, the government he supported would practically be a monarchy.

Thoughts?

[Username17]

Fuck Alexander Hamilton. It's basically his fault that we have a state-related "Senate" and an electoral college. He was a fervently anti-democratic fucker. Fuck him.

-Username17

[Crissa]

And ironically, he was the lowest born of our founding fathers.

He feared the US would not survive mob rule - and his and their work would be for naught, as in France.

-Crissa

[tzor]

Democracy? Fuck democracy! In his mind it was nothing but a pretext to communism (even though he never heard of the word, there was a general fear that democracy would mean the end to all property - including the right to own land not just slaves - rights). Look at France; the worship of the goddess Reason and the love of madame Guiotine. No my good sir, I say good fuck to democracy!

The United States was ... the United States. What the fuck do you expect the United States to be? You want to take the Nations out of the United Nations? It was the states that got together to form a federal government. The first attempt, the articles of confederation was crap so the second attempt was for a stronger government but a very limited one.

The Electorial College was born of necessity for the limits of transportation in the 18th and early 19th centuries. It's not needed now, but it was useful at the time.

It would be wrong to say that Hamilton's ideas were incorporated into the constitution. He had a number of ideas that never got in - a good thing in my opinion.

During the convention, he constructed a draft on the basis of the debates which he did not actually present. This has most of the features of the actual Constitution, down to such details as the three-fifths clause, but not all of them. In his draft, the Senate was to be elected in proportion to population, being two-fifths the size of the House, and the President and Senators were to be elected through complex multi-stage elections, in which chosen electors would elect smaller bodies of electors; they would hold office for life, but were removable for misconduct. The President would have an absolute veto. The Supreme Court was to have immediate jurisdiction over all suits involving the United States, and State governors were to be appointed by the Federal Government.

[Lago_AM3P]

Well, in your opinion which one of the Founding fathers do you admire/think had good ideas/yadda yadda?

[Username17]

Ben Franklin for the win.

Except for his national language and proposed persecution of German immigrants. That was dumb.

-Username17

[Crissa]

I want our side to win. Or maybe more accurately, I don't want our side to lose....As with any other form of violence, motivation is everything. A cop shooting a murderer is not the same as a murderer shooting an innocent victim, although both use guns, and at the end, someone is bleeding and dying.

You'd be amazed at how many people find these things nearly equivalent. A leftist I know sees no difference between a Palestinian child dying from a stray Israeli bullet during a firefight, and an Israeli child dying when a Palestinian terrorist puts the barrel of a gun to the kid's forehead and blows his brains across the back wall of the child's bedroom. In his two-dimensional perception, the only important factor is that both resulted in a dead child. Avoiding true moral analysis and motivations allows him to skirt the concept of "evil," a term which makes many liberals intensely uncomfortable.

John Kiriakou said that waterboarding a terrorist stopped dozens of attacks. Dozens. Not attacks on military targets, but attacks on innocent non-combatants.

That was the motivation.

The terrorists who torture and kill our prisoners (never something as benign as waterboarding) don't do it because they need information to save innocent people. They do it because they like it, because they want to hurt or kill someone.

At some point you have to decide if a known terrorist having a very bad day (after which he goes back to a hot meal and a cot) is more of a moral problem than allowing a terrorist to blow up a building full of people.

Yes, it's good if we do it, when it's for the right reasons. So far, it's been for the right reasons. And no, it isn't good when it's done to us, for the reasons it has been done to us. Get back to me when some enemy tortures one of our soldiers in order to save innocent lives.

Got it?

[Neeek]

1197751766[/unixtime]]Well, in your opinion which one of the Founding fathers do you admire/think had good ideas/yadda yadda?

I'm rather fond of George Mason. He refused to sign the Constitution because it didn't ban slavery.

[tzor]

1197751766[/unixtime]]Well, in your opinion which one of the Founding fathers do you admire/think had good ideas/yadda yadda?

I'm really partial to John Adams. Honestly I think the original "odd couple" was Adams and Franklyn. His biggest problem in my opinion was that he never realized that the role of the Vice President of the United States (and President of the Senate) was to stand there, look pretty and shut up! (As opposed to George Washington who apparently was read his Mrianda rights before going into office because he spent his two terms keeping his personal opinions to himself and acting in all ways presidential.)

In the end it is important to remember that all the founding fathers were people; with good things and bad things; greatnesses and faults as can be found in everyone. They fought and got into arguments. Our view of history is as equally shaded by their followers as their enemies.

[Lago_AM3P]

Does THOMAS FUCKING PAINE count as a founding father?

If not, he should. That Sunshine Patriot was some serious shiz. Kept the Continental army together during Trenton and Princeton. Oh, and Common Sense ruled.

If I can't nominate THOMAS FUCKING PAINE, can I throw up John Adams, too?

[Lago_AM3P]

Our view of history is as equally shaded by their followers as their enemies.

I noticed lately that John Madison and Thomas Jefferson are being viewed in a much more negative light by contemporaries while Alexander Hamilton's star has been nudged up.

Bizarre.

[Neeek]

1197774898[/unixtime]]

Our view of history is as equally shaded by their followers as their enemies.

I noticed lately that John Madison and Thomas Jefferson are being viewed in a much more negative light by contemporaries while Alexander Hamilton's star has been nudged up.

James Madison.

Jefferson suffers from being an idealist, who constantly got into scrapes with John Marshall, who was much more pragmatic, and generally consider one of the more reasonable people of his era.

[Crissa]

Jefferson had great ideas, but he's the one who brought mob rule and the Republican Party into our lives... At first it was just progressive churchies, but authoritarianism grows well there.

Too bad he didn't know that until later.

-Crissa

[Neeek]

1197794347[/unixtime]]Jefferson had great ideas, but he's the one who brought mob rule and the Republican Party into our lives...

Uh...Jefferson founded the Democratic-Republican party, which became the Democratic party.

[Surgo]

Not to mention that the Republican party now is not the same as the Republican party 100 years ago so crucifying him for that, even if he did found it, would be foolish.

[tzor]

Those who don't know history ... sound really funny to those who do.

[fbmf]

1197848911[/unixtime]]Those who don't know history ... sound really funny to those who do.

That's quality material. Time for a new sig.

Game On,
fbmf

[Bigode]

Doesn't look like it - I still see butt gastronomy.