Federalist Papers

Did any of the framers/founders actually believe the newly formed republic would remain as such indefinitely?

Everything I've read makes me believe that they all for the most part had a thorough understanding of world history and knew the progression toward tyranny would be inevitable. Despite their best efforts to slow that progression.

Here is a PDF of the Word Version: http://herohog.com/images/politics/FEDERALIST%20PAPERS.pdf

eye95 said:

I do rely on them for these understandings instead of the writings of the losers of the debate.

Click to expand...

Why does this not surprise me one bit?



Good posts by Citizen, BTW. Also not surprising.

marshaul said:

Why does this not surprise me one bit?...

Click to expand...

Why does a drive-by post from you not surprise me one bit? Back to ignoreland with you. How you got out, I don't know.

marshaul said:

Why does this not surprise me one bit?



Good posts by Citizen, BTW. Also not surprising.

Click to expand...

Yay! Marshaul is back! Or maybe you have been and I didn't notice. Haven't seen you around here for a while.

marshaul said:

Why does this not surprise me one bit?



Good posts by Citizen, BTW. Also not surprising.

Click to expand...

LOL....Hey long time no hear, you been hiding out eating in McDonalds before they ban it from your city?

It doesn't surprise me one bit either, there are some strict strong "republicans" who believe we need "authority". Much like many of the Federalists.

I took citizens advice and read a bit on the anti-federalist some time ago, it adds a lot of perspective, I don't have a great mind for history or politics but I would hope people would be more open minded and not so quick to jump to conclusions that "tickle their ear".

As for the checks and balances, we are supposed to be the ultimate check and let leave it solely up to the government to check and balance itself, and maybe why Jefferson, recommended a revolution every once in awhile, we have failed.

HeroHog said:

Here is a PDF of the Word Version: http://herohog.com/images/politics/FEDERALIST PAPERS.pdf

Click to expand...

Thank you for the PDF.

Beretta92FSLady said:

Thank you for the PDF.

Click to expand...

Any time! If I ever feel up to it, I will attempt to edit and hyperlink the index!

eye95 said:

Why does a drive-by post from you not surprise me one bit? Back to ignoreland with you. How you got out, I don't know.

Click to expand...

How sad. Now I get to refute your arguments without any rebuttal. As if I needed the help!

sudden valley gunner said:

LOL....Hey long time no hear, you been hiding out eating in McDonalds before they ban it from your city?

Click to expand...

I've been going to a new school, new major. Working hard, so I can transfer to a better school back in VA. And, yes, eating McDonalds.

It doesn't surprise me one bit either, there are some strict strong "republicans" who believe we need "authority". Much like many of the Federalists.

I took citizens advice and read a bit on the anti-federalist some time ago, it adds a lot of perspective, I don't have a great mind for history or politics but I would hope people would be more open minded and not so quick to jump to conclusions that "tickle their ear".

As for the checks and balances, we are supposed to be the ultimate check and let leave it solely up to the government to check and balance itself, and maybe why Jefferson, recommended a revolution every once in awhile, we have failed.

Click to expand...

Indeed. I think that the proper perspective frequently comes from an understanding of both sides of the debate. Ignoring the "losers" outright -- as Eye95 implies he does -- is generally limiting, all the more so in this case, where the "losers" were anything but.

marshaul said:

Indeed. I think that the proper perspective frequently comes from an understanding of both sides of the debate. Ignoring the "losers" outright -- as Eye95 implies he does -- is generally limiting, all the more so in this case, where the "losers" were anything but.

Click to expand...

Yep the looser succeeded in getting us the Bill of Rights. And yes I made his ignore list too, and get to refute his "authoritarian" viewpoints often now without rebuttal. It is kinda nice.

The Federalists Papers were written by three men that were delegates and were actually present at the Constitutional Convention. These men knew the intent of the framers and the intent of the Constitution. They also participated feverishly during the debates held there.

The Federalists Papers were and are more than a mere PR campaign. They hold the true intent, although they are incomplete as to the entire content of Constitution.

The anti-federalists papers was the true PR campaign because the parties involved wanted to continue under the Articles of Confederation, which was a true disaster, and either lied or speculated repeatedly to keep the Constitution from being ratified.

rodbender said:

The Federalists Papers were written by three men that were delegates and were actually present at the Constitutional Convention. These men knew the intent of the framers and the intent of the Constitution. They also participated feverishly during the debates held there.

The Federalists Papers were and are more than a mere PR campaign. They hold the true intent, although they are incomplete as to the entire content of Constitution.

The anti-federalists papers was the true PR campaign because the parties involved wanted to continue under the Articles of Confederation, which was a true disaster, and either lied or speculated repeatedly to keep the Constitution from being ratified.

Click to expand...

I would hope we do not now consider men such as these to be "losers"!

Patrick Henry
Samuel Adams
George Mason
Richard Henry Lee
James Monroe (president)
George Clinton (vice pres. under Thomas Jefferson and James Madison!)

These men were enormously important in the forming of our country, as were the leading Federalists of course. Both sides won many times. The BoR was written by the Feds only because the AntiFeds held a proverbial flintlock to their heads.

PS: Nice to see you again marshaul! Time for a libertarian take over of this joint...

Jim675 said:

I would hope we do not now consider men such as these to be "losers"!

Patrick Henry
Samuel Adams
George Mason
Richard Henry Lee
James Monroe (president)
George Clinton (vice pres. under Thomas Jefferson and James Madison!)

These men were enormously important in the forming of our country, as were the leading Federalists of course. Both sides won many times. The BoR was written by the Feds only because the AntiFeds held a proverbial flintlock to their heads.

PS: Nice to see you again marshaul! Time for a libertarian take over of this joint...

Click to expand...

Strawman alert. The strawman has been highlighted in red also.

Those who lost the debate on the ratification of the Constitution were the losers, not "losers." Of course, it is easier to mock an invented contention than to rationally deal with what was actually said.

So, for those having trouble understanding my point, let me make it again: When considering the meaning of the Constitution, it is useful to consider the reasoning by those who advocated for the Constitution. It is not useful to consider what those who were opposed to the Constitution said it meant, because it is not a document they wrote and advocated. Therefore, I do not consider the words of the losers of the debate because they don't shed light on what those who wrote the Constitution meant.

eye95 said:

Strawman alert. The strawman has been highlighted in red also.

Those who lost the debate on the ratification of the Constitution were the losers, not "losers." Of course, it is easier to mock an invented contention than to rationally deal with what was actually said.

So, for those having trouble understanding my point, let me make it again: When considering the meaning of the Constitution, it is useful to consider the reasoning by those who advocated for the Constitution. It is not useful to consider what those who were opposed to the Constitution said it meant, because it is not a document they wrote and advocated. Therefore, I do not consider the words of the losers of the debate because they don't shed light on what those who wrote the Constitution meant.

Click to expand...

Excellent point.

Actually, I understood what you meant just fine. References to them not being "losers" were facetious.

What you seem to be failing to grasp is that, having more votes did not place the Federalists in a vacuum.

If you think that the presence of anti-Federalists didn't have a mitigative effect on the statist tendencies of the likes of Hamilton, you're just ignoring the history.

The anti-Federalists didn't keep the Articles of the Confederation, but they had their say in votes along the way, and the limited character of the final Constitution has as much to do with their votes as it does with the "winners".

You know as well as I do that significant portions of the Constitution were drafted by anti-Federalists, and many parts were changed due to their votes.

It wasn't like Hamilton and Morris got together one day, and passed the Constitution all in one go, and then the Anti-Federalists managed to somehow get enough votes to pass the BoR, each group existing in their own vacuum.

Come on. Get real.

Personally, I'm interested in study of both sets of "papers", although I generally prefer the anti-Federalist sentiment. And it still doesn't surprise me when statists prefer the Federalist papers to the exclusion of even considering the anti-Federalist papers, as eye95 has admitted to having done.

OldCurlyWolf said:

Excellent point.

Click to expand...

Too bad it's a historically incorrect point. There were plenty of anti-Federalists at the Constitutional Convention.

So glad to have ya back Marshaus. Well argued and concise. I think the much the same way but just can't spell it out as well as folks like you and Citizen can.

I miss Tomohawk too where has he been?

sudden valley gunner said:

So glad to have ya back Marshaus. Well argued and concise. I think the much the same way but just can't spell it out as well as folks like you and Citizen can.

I miss Tomohawk too where has he been?

Click to expand...

+1
Wherefore art thou?