The American Revolution? Resources?
#21
(06-27-2009, 02:24 AM)Mac_Giolla_Bhrighde Wrote: I'm sympathetic to the anti-Hamilton Central Banking, but I also agree with Hamilton that it was absolutely necessary to get the new country on a firm financial footing. The old war debts and restitution to loyalists were lingering issues from the War of Independence that needed to be resolve, especially since Britain was making the latter a very hot issue between the two countries. 

I wonder if I'm the only guy here who actually likes Hamilton and has contemplated putting Aaron Burr on a dartboard. How Burr was able to continue serving as Vice President despite having been charged with murder in two states is beyond me. F-ing Burr....
Reply
#22
(06-27-2009, 02:32 AM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote:
(06-27-2009, 02:24 AM)Mac_Giolla_Bhrighde Wrote: I'm sympathetic to the anti-Hamilton Central Banking, but I also agree with Hamilton that it was absolutely necessary to get the new country on a firm financial footing. The old war debts and restitution to loyalists were lingering issues from the War of Independence that needed to be resolve, especially since Britain was making the latter a very hot issue between the two countries. 

I wonder if I'm the only guy here who actually likes Hamilton and has contemplated putting Aaron Burr on a dartboard. How Burr was able to continue serving as Vice President despite having been charged with murder in two states is beyond me. F-ing Burr....

He was also charged with treason after that (for something else). Probably the only person to get off on murder and treason and still have a law practice.
Reply
#23
(06-27-2009, 02:32 AM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote:
(06-27-2009, 02:24 AM)Mac_Giolla_Bhrighde Wrote: I'm sympathetic to the anti-Hamilton Central Banking, but I also agree with Hamilton that it was absolutely necessary to get the new country on a firm financial footing. The old war debts and restitution to loyalists were lingering issues from the War of Independence that needed to be resolve, especially since Britain was making the latter a very hot issue between the two countries. 

I wonder if I'm the only guy here who actually likes Hamilton and has contemplated putting Aaron Burr on a dartboard. How Burr was able to continue serving as Vice President despite having been charged with murder in two states is beyond me. F-ing Burr....

Oh I agree about Burr. He was one of those people that was accurately described in Vanity Fair. He lived off political donations and huge borrowing of money. I think the fact that he was meeting such political opposition to reaching the top, thus not able to pay back his political backers, is probably what drove him to challenging Hamilton and whatever involvement he really had with the Western Succession Conspiracy.
Reply
#24
(06-27-2009, 02:38 AM)Rosarium Wrote:
(06-27-2009, 02:32 AM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote:
(06-27-2009, 02:24 AM)Mac_Giolla_Bhrighde Wrote: I'm sympathetic to the anti-Hamilton Central Banking, but I also agree with Hamilton that it was absolutely necessary to get the new country on a firm financial footing. The old war debts and restitution to loyalists were lingering issues from the War of Independence that needed to be resolve, especially since Britain was making the latter a very hot issue between the two countries. 

I wonder if I'm the only guy here who actually likes Hamilton and has contemplated putting Aaron Burr on a dartboard. How Burr was able to continue serving as Vice President despite having been charged with murder in two states is beyond me. F-ing Burr....

He was also charged with treason after that (for something else). Probably the only person to get off on murder and treason and still have a law practice.

There is a good Historical Fiction work called Treason by David Nevin. It covers mostly James Madison and Aaron burr. Nevin fleshed out the theory that Thomas Jefferson and James Madison covered up Burr's involvement in the conspiracy to break away Western US and Eastern Mexico for the good of the country, because it also involved the commanding US Army General and majority of the US Army.
Reply
#25
(06-27-2009, 02:32 AM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote:
(06-27-2009, 02:24 AM)Mac_Giolla_Bhrighde Wrote: I'm sympathetic to the anti-Hamilton Central Banking, but I also agree with Hamilton that it was absolutely necessary to get the new country on a firm financial footing. The old war debts and restitution to loyalists were lingering issues from the War of Independence that needed to be resolve, especially since Britain was making the latter a very hot issue between the two countries. 

I wonder if I'm the only guy here who actually likes Hamilton and has contemplated putting Aaron Burr on a dartboard. How Burr was able to continue serving as Vice President despite having been charged with murder in two states is beyond me. F-ing Burr....

And I thought politicians got away with stuff now a days.
Reply
#26
(06-27-2009, 02:32 AM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote:
(06-27-2009, 02:24 AM)Mac_Giolla_Bhrighde Wrote: I'm sympathetic to the anti-Hamilton Central Banking, but I also agree with Hamilton that it was absolutely necessary to get the new country on a firm financial footing. The old war debts and restitution to loyalists were lingering issues from the War of Independence that needed to be resolve, especially since Britain was making the latter a very hot issue between the two countries. 

I wonder if I'm the only guy here who actually likes Hamilton and has contemplated putting Aaron Burr on a dartboard. How Burr was able to continue serving as Vice President despite having been charged with murder in two states is beyond me. F-ing Burr....

I liked Hamilton.

I forget why, but in high school AP US History, I liked Hamilton.
Reply
#27
(06-27-2009, 02:03 AM)Mac_Giolla_Bhrighde Wrote: "The Articles were a good framework for the infant Union to have followed. But it was sabotaged by the same merchant and banking class that is behind so much of what we suffer today."

The Articles were not a good framework. They didn't provide enough central unity, which is exactly why that experiment failed. The current constitution is a good framework as long as it is adhered to, but we haven't done that since the Great Emancipator. The whole banking issue is really outside the confines of the constitution since it doesn't expressly spell out such a function. A constitutional convention should of been convened with a proposal of amendment to address that issue.

Even though I'd take a lot of what he writes with a grain of salt, I link to an article from Michael A. Hoffman II regarding "Shay's Rebellion". This ties into what I said regarding the merchant and banking class vis-a-vis the Articles. The link to it is here:

http://www.loompanics.com/Articles/Shays.htm

Next this article from John Spencer of the Evangelical Protestant group "Embassy of Heaven". He briefly goes into the early banking history of America and how it ties into the elimination of the Articles. The link to it is here:

http://secular.embassyofheaven.com/usa/w...tution.htm

Third is an article from George F. Smith at the anarcho-capitalist website "Strike The Root". It delves into the printing of fiat-currency by Congress while the Revolution was going on, the inflation it caused, the rich elites profiting from it, and the end result of the trashing of the Articles. The link to it is here:

http://www.strike-the-root.com/82/smith/smith1.html

Fourth is an essay by Stephen Zarlenga, Director of the American Monetary Institute. It also touches on the problem with bankers, debt and the Articles, especially from the brief perspective of President Martin Van Buren. The link to it is here:

http://www.monetary.org/briefusmonetaryhistory.htm

Fifth is an essay by libertarian Ryan McMaken for LewRockwell.com on the main anti-Federalist Patrick Henry. (NOTE: As a Distributist, I am opposed to much of what the Libertarians stand for. But we agree, at least, on the curse of big government.) Henry was rightly suspicious about the Constitutional Convention and voiced his suspicions quite well. The link to the article is here:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcmaken/mcmaken93.html

In light of these and other articles, it seems to me that the Articles did need revising but not destroying. The Constitutional Convention did that. Hence, my statement that the American Revolution was betrayed.

Thank you all for your time and attention.
Reply
#28
[But none of those attitudes became law, which is key. Even William Penn, the owern of Pennsylvania made sure Catholics could make churches and were protected equally, despite William Penn's anti-Catholic writings (he was an influential Quaker).
[/quote]


Unfortunately it is not true that the anti-Catholic mentality did not make it into law.  In "Catholics in Colonial America," John Tracy Ellis notes the following about some of the states:

New Hampshire:  "...New Hampshire held four conventions between 1776 and 1784, but the favored status of the protestant religion stood throughout, as did a colonial law making the church a town institution to be supported by public taxes."

Connecticut:  "...although it did not adopt a new constitution the bill enacted in 1784 for securing the rights of conscience left no room for Catholics and Jews."

New York:  "But more to the point were John Jay's fierce attacks on the Catholic Church in the New York convention of 1777 which carried the day against the counsels of moderation sounded by men like Robert Livingston and Gouverneur Morris.  True, freedom of conscience and of worship were established, but all naturalized citizens were compelled to take an oath of allegiance to New York State, 'and abjure and renounce all allegiance and subjection to all and every foreign king, prince, potentate, and State in all matters, ECCLESIASTICAL (my emphasis) as well as civil.'  It was a provision that...kept Catholics out of office in the state until 1806."

New Jersey:  "...New Jersey, drew up a new constitution n 1776 that granted complete freedom of worship, athough only protestants were guaranteed the enjoyment of civil rights and a religious test was imposed which confined public offices to 'persons professing a belief in the faith of any protestant sect'..."

North Carolina:  "North Carolina's qualification for holding office was much narrower in that no one who denied the existence of God and 'the truth of the protestant religion,' was capable of holding office, a restriction which was removed in part in 1835..."

South Carolina:  "'The Christian protestant religion shall be deemed, and is hereby constituted, and declared to be, the established religion of this state.'" (This was in 1778).

Georgia:  "...Georgia, granted freedom of conscience in its constitution of 1777, but all members of the legislature were required to be of the protestant religion."

Now, none of this is necessarily an argument against the American revolution.  I just think it is important to understand that independence from England did not automatically result in a glorious birth of freedom for Catholics in America.  Also, quite a number of Catholics remained Loyalists and fought for the Crown.  Many of them high tailed it to Canada or elsewhere.  As I say, a mixed bag.
Reply
#29
(06-27-2009, 04:56 PM)HailGilbert Wrote:
(06-27-2009, 02:03 AM)Mac_Giolla_Bhrighde Wrote: "The Articles were a good framework for the infant Union to have followed. But it was sabotaged by the same merchant and banking class that is behind so much of what we suffer today."

The Articles were not a good framework. They didn't provide enough central unity, which is exactly why that experiment failed. The current constitution is a good framework as long as it is adhered to, but we haven't done that since the Great Emancipator. The whole banking issue is really outside the confines of the constitution since it doesn't expressly spell out such a function. A constitutional convention should of been convened with a proposal of amendment to address that issue.

Even though I'd take a lot of what he writes with a grain of salt, I link to an article from Michael A. Hoffman II regarding "Shay's Rebellion". This ties into what I said regarding the merchant and banking class vis-a-vis the Articles. The link to it is here:

http://www.loompanics.com/Articles/Shays.htm

Next this article from John Spencer of the Evangelical Protestant group "Embassy of Heaven". He briefly goes into the early banking history of America and how it ties into the elimination of the Articles. The link to it is here:

http://secular.embassyofheaven.com/usa/w...tution.htm

Third is an article from George F. Smith at the anarcho-capitalist website "Strike The Root". It delves into the printing of fiat-currency by Congress while the Revolution was going on, the inflation it caused, the rich elites profiting from it, and the end result of the trashing of the Articles. The link to it is here:

http://www.strike-the-root.com/82/smith/smith1.html

Fourth is an essay by Stephen Zarlenga, Director of the American Monetary Institute. It also touches on the problem with bankers, debt and the Articles, especially from the brief perspective of President Martin Van Buren. The link to it is here:

http://www.monetary.org/briefusmonetaryhistory.htm

Fifth is an essay by libertarian Ryan McMaken for LewRockwell.com on the main anti-Federalist Patrick Henry. (NOTE: As a Distributist, I am opposed to much of what the Libertarians stand for. But we agree, at least, on the curse of big government.) Henry was rightly suspicious about the Constitutional Convention and voiced his suspicions quite well. The link to the article is here:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcmaken/mcmaken93.html

In light of these and other articles, it seems to me that the Articles did need revising but not destroying. The Constitutional Convention did that. Hence, my statement that the American Revolution was betrayed.

Thank you all for your time and attention.

I'm trying to read through most of the links you posted, but honestly you shouldn't post multiple links to long articles. Most people like myself get "tired head" reading that long at the computer. You should try to summarize as best as possible,  then leave the links at the bottom for further perusal.

To what I have read..........typical articles in ranting and raving about things, but never offer alternatives or solutions. I agree banking/finance can be taken to extreme of greedy and usury that hurts a lot of people when the the greedy fall (and they always do eventually). But there has to be a role for banking. Bartering is great for small scale, but becomes to complex when it is needed to scale upward. Which is why the concept of currency even came about. The farmer's issues of operating on credit is nothing new and still done today. Even though majority of farmers do operate primarily out of cash, especially many had the foresight to switch prior to the recent market correction. But credit is necessary for expansion and growth as long as it is in small conservative amounts. I guess the hard part is what check and balances are necessary and effective to keep it that way? Of course no system is perfect.

As to the Articles of Confederation. I could roll with it, if it had the means for a standing national defense force that served for that role only. Anything else requiring agreement from individual states for calling their militias up. The Constitution works fine as long as it is adhered to strictly and a stable currency is available. It does get stretched and "updated" every time there is a trying time period in our country, which I guess that one author brought up being one of the weaknesses of the Constitution. As to Shays Rebellion, that is the whole problem with passive rebellions. It is doomed for failure, but usually is the more moral method. He should of marched on Boston from the get go instead of wasting time occupying courthouses. And yes the irony of Washington suppressing the Whiskey Rebellion is not lost on me. But as I always say, if you are going to revolt you better well damn make sure you win. Because I'm in full support of the "state" having the right to suppress rebellion and maintain law and order. That was the problem I have the War of Northern Aggression. The day the South didn't immediately invade the North was the day the succession movement died.
Reply
#30
(06-26-2009, 12:11 AM)Quaesumus Wrote: What is a Catholic to think of the American Revolution, and what are some reliable sources that I might be able to read up on it? Thanks!

All I need, as a Catholic are the facts that the Declaration of Independence  condemns King George for granting freedom of worship to the Catholics of Canada, while Catholicism was illegal in 12 of the 13 colonies. The exception was Rhode Island, founded on the principle of religious freedom. Even Maryland, founded by the Catholic Calverts had been taken over by the Anglicans in 1688-89 and the Church outlawed.Add to that the fact that the Bishops of Canada strongly supported the King (remember they were Frenchmen who had only been under British rule for about 12 years) and that the Catholics of Canada refused to join the Rebellion even when they were 'liberated', very temporarily I might add, by American troops.

Even long before I immigrated to Canada, I opposed the Revolution on the basis of these facts.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)