Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Except that purchase of a slave is a public act, ownership of a slave is a matter of record, and both of these activities fall within the legal purview of a state.
The full faith and credit argument is specious when it comes to the Fugitive Slave Acts. The Acts required the active participation in the capture and return of suspected runaway slaves by local officials and every day citizens based purely on the basis of a claim (not a public record) by the suspects alleged owner. The captured individual born free or slave were denied the right to even challenge the claim in court. Even under the full faith and credit clause a challenge to the validity of the claim is subject to judicial review. If this were a simple matter of full faith and credit, the Fugitive Slave Acts would have been totally unnecessary but the forced use of free state institutions to enforce slavery went far beyond that. On a scale of 1 to 10 with even the most strident opponents of the Affordable Care Act being rates as a 8, the Fugitive Slave Acts, I my opinion was the largest encroachment of the federal government by forcing what was legal in one state to recognize was was fundamentally illegal in another.
the Fugitive Slave Acts, I my opinion was the largest encroachment of the federal government by forcing what was legal in one state to recognize was was fundamentally illegal in another.
That's exactly what brought about the civil war, together with Northern States passing state laws that went against The South "Big government" push to force everybody to comply with it.
I don't think for a second that anyone who has been involved in this debate to date thinks of that the federal government of even the 20th century bears any resemblance to the federal government that existed prior to the Civil War which is part why I scoffed at your statement that the Confederacy was aiming to establish a nation with a "weaker" central government.
Again, judging from the caliber of the comments posted, I don't believe that anyone is unaware of the schism between the Federalist and Anti-Federalist positions or even the divide between the Federalist like Madison and Jefferson vs the views of the likes of Alexander Hamilton. This not the issue. The issue is that the slave states were strong federalist when it suited their purposes and anti-federalist when it didn't and then quickly reverted to federalism during their tenure as the government of the Confederate States. And that is the topic of this thread.
South was for a strong federal government before they were agin it, used state's rights as a cloak of legitimacy and then proceeded to act like strong federalist during the war.
Yes, you are correct insofar that Jefferson was not a delegate to the Constitutional Convention and thus did not sign the proposed document, nor did he join Madison, Jefferson or John Jay in the authorship of the pamphlets from which the name federalist was derived. But then neither was Jefferson an Anti-Federalist having joined with Madison to form the first federalist political party, the Democratic-Republican Party and both of whom went on to become presidents of the federalist government of the United States.
Yes, you are correct insofar that Jefferson was not a delegate to the Constitutional Convention and thus did not sign the proposed document, nor did he join Madison, Jefferson or John Jay in the authorship of the pamphlets from which the name federalist was derived. But then neither was Jefferson an Anti-Federalist having joined with Madison to form the first federalist political party, the Democratic-Republican Party and both of whom went on to become presidents of the federalist government of the United States.
No, DC has it right.
While people like Madison and Hamilton were federalists from the beginning, Jefferson never was truly a federalist.
The Democratic-Republican Party was formed by Jefferson, Madison and others in response to the Federalists, led by John Adams, Alexander Hamilton and others.
While people like Madison and Hamilton were federalists from the beginning, Jefferson never was truly a federalist.
The Democratic-Republican Party was formed by Jefferson, Madison and others in response to the Federalists, led by John Adams, Alexander Hamilton and others.
Here's the problem as I see it. You have two schools of thought, federalist and the anti-federalist. Clearly the federalist with the exception of Hamilton himself where those who signed the draft of the Constitution, or participated in authorship of the Federalist Papers; Hamilton, Madison and John Jay. On the opposing side we had Cato (likely George Clinton), Brutus (likely Robert Yates), Centinel (Samuel Bryan), and the Federal Farmer (either Melancton Smith, Richard Henry Lee, or Mercy Otis Warren) and Patrick Henry.
You can't argue that the Democratic-Republicans was not a federalist party when the preeminent federalist was James Madison. Both the Federalist Party and the Democratic-Republican Party were federalist, did they disagree over character of a federal government? Most certainly but fact remains, they were federalist.
You can't argue that the Democratic-Republicans was not a federalist party when the preeminent federalist was James Madison. Both the Federalist Party and the Democratic-Republican Party were federalist, did they disagree over character of a federal government? Most certainly but fact remains, they were federalist.
Keep in mind that while the Federalist Party was running candidates through the 1812 election (and maybe 1816, I'm not Googling right now) they were, for all intents and purposes dead after the 1800 election. Thus, many people of a "federalist" (small "f") ideology found their way into the Democratic-Republican Party.
Not surprisingly, Jefferson quickly abandoned the anti-Federalist philosophy upon becoming President. He admitted to "stretching the Constitution" to enable him to complete the Louisiana Purchase. I don't condemn him for that; similar to any good Jew (I am proudly Jewish) he saw a bargain and didn't like to pay full price.
Keep in mind that while the Federalist Party was running candidates through the 1812 election (and maybe 1816, I'm not Googling right now) they were, for all intents and purposes dead after the 1800 election. Thus, many people of a "federalist" (small "f") ideology found their way into the Democratic-Republican Party.
Not surprisingly, Jefferson quickly abandoned the anti-Federalist philosophy upon becoming President. He admitted to "stretching the Constitution" to enable him to complete the Louisiana Purchase. I don't condemn him for that; similar to any good Jew (I am proudly Jewish) he saw a bargain and didn't like to pay full price.
Jefferson didn't abandon anti-Federalist philosophy. The Louisiana Purchase was a huge struggle for him, but he went forward with it because he was ultimately a pragmatist. His first priority as President was the nation, and the Louisiana Purchase wasn't just a good bargain, it was an imperative, because if the land went to another European country, we would have had an empire builder at our back door. We already had a border with Great Britain, via Canada. The idea of the United States spreading westward was already prevalent, and the Louisiana Purchase enabled that expansion. The practical aspects of the deal outweighed Jefferson's personal ideals regarding federal versus states' rights, and he made a choice. He put the nation first, not himself.
You can't argue that the Democratic-Republicans was not a federalist party when the preeminent federalist was James Madison. Both the Federalist Party and the Democratic-Republican Party were federalist, did they disagree over character of a federal government? Most certainly but fact remains, they were federalist.
The issue with claiming that the Democratic-Republican Party was a federalist party because James Madison was a federalist fails because there were also anti-federalists who were Democratic Republicans: Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, Elbridge Gerry, Samuel Adams.
Somewhat amazingly, Patrick Henry was one of the most vocal anti-federalists, but at the end of his life Henry won a seat in the Virginia House of Delegates as a Federalist.
Been awhile since I've been out on a limb by myself....
Quote:
Originally Posted by djmilf
The issue with claiming that the Democratic-Republican Party was a federalist party because James Madison was a federalist fails because there were also anti-federalists who were Democratic Republicans: Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, Elbridge Gerry, Samuel Adams.
The "federalist" Constitution was ratified in 1788. The Democratic-Republican Party comes into being four years later in 1792 Madison and Jefferson because they disagree with Hamilton/Adams version of federalism. But to paraphrase Milton Friedman, "they were all federalist now!"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
