Hamilton Wins, Jackson Loses

[CAA Flagship]

Trader Vidav's? Is that some western hippie grocery store, or does Vidav just trade in vodka and other Russian goods?

I saw a werewolf drinking a pina colada at Trader Vidav's
His hair was perfect

Good one, Flaggy.

[GannonFan]

Well, first of all, the quote you include came 29 years after the Constitutional Convention, so it hardly seems to count as "debate" that was ongoing at the Constitutional Convention. And of course, Jefferson was an ocean away in Paris for the entirety of the Constitutional Convention, and while he certainly had correspondence with Madison and Jay prior to the event, there was little communication between them during the event since it lasted only about 4 months and the proceedings were kept secret, even to Jefferson at the time. Hard to consider him as "a principle architect of the Constitution" since he wasn't even there and many of the things Madison (whom if you want to argue was influenced by Jefferson) thought so dear and had to be in the Constitution never even got into the final document. And to quote "Hamilton", "...and if you don't know, now you know".

Come on, GF. He may not have been there for the party, but he was a big influence on the document and kept in touch with Madison during the process.

But regardless, there's nothing in the constitution explicitly forbidding secession and you can't tell me that they didn't anticipate it would be an issue and consider when writing the constitution.

I stand by what I said. It's not like Jefferson and Madison had Snapchat back then. He was in Paris, Madison was first in Virginia before travelling to Philly. Madison wrote to Jefferson to tell him who was in attendance at the start of the convention, but then he also said he wouldn't be able to tell him much. He even sent Jefferson a letter much later saying that Jefferson would be surprised about a lot that was in the document. That's because, although Madison is credited as the "Father of the Constitution", it's more apt to call him the "Father of the Bill of Rights" because much of what Madison wanted in the Constitution (such as only proportional representation in the legislature) never got into the document. Heck, Jefferson's complaints about the Constitution we ended up with stretched for the remaining almost 40 years of his life - hardly something one who constructed it would've been doing.

On the other point, dback has covered it very well. It wasn't something covered in great detail until the ratification conventions in the months that followed so they didn't spend a great deal of time on it anyway. And frankly, Gouverneur Morris doesn't get enough credit, one, for actually writing the Constitution, but for having the wherewithal to actually put "We the People" into the preamble rather than "We the States". They did talk about his inclusion of that wording at the convention and then the likes of Patrick Henry clearly noticed the implication of the language because it would forever exclude secession as something that could happen. That Mr. Morris was a sharp guy.

[SDHornet]

The good news is we can debate about the war all day but what really matters is the traitors lost and the country remained whole.

Yup, and a racist, genocidal Southerner is off the most used bill.






And we have a black President, and will be soon electing a female President.

And, hijab in The Citadel!

So you know Harriet Tubman was a devout Christian right?

Just to be clear, if we apply today's metric to Tubman like some are doing to Jackson, you and your libtard ilk would shout Tubman down for being a homophobic bigot as she no doubt would be opposed to a lot of your single voter issues.

BTW I like the move of keeping Hamilton and moving Jackson to the back of the bus...er I mean bill.

Also, anyone else see the humor in a women being put on a 20...which also happens to be the universal cost of a lap dance?

[JohnStOnge]

[93henfan]

[DSUrocks07]

Meh...all this talk of secession.

Just overthrow the government and torch the Constitution and make up your own rules for your own territory.

Until then STFU about it.

The fact that things like "is secession legal", "can trans use public restrooms", "should gay marriage be legal", "should GMOs be banned", when there are much bigger problems that SHOULD BE prioritized first, makes me feel that that "overthrow the government" thing might happen sooner rather than later.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

Yup, and a racist, genocidal Southerner is off the most used bill.






And we have a black President, and will be soon electing a female President.

And, hijab in The Citadel!

So you know Harriet Tubman was a devout Christian right?

Just to be clear, if we apply today's metric to Tubman like some are doing to Jackson, you and your libtard ilk would shout Tubman down for being a homophobic bigot as she no doubt would be opposed to a lot of your single voter issues.

BTW I like the move of keeping Hamilton and moving Jackson to the back of the bus...er I mean bill.

Also, anyone else see the humor in a women being put on a 20...which also happens to be the universal cost of a lap dance?

Why would we put 21st Century morals on her? That would make is hypocrites.


Oh wait....

[UNI88]

Yup, and a racist, genocidal Southerner is off the most used bill.

So you know Harriet Tubman was a devout Christian right?

Just to be clear, if we apply today's metric to Tubman like some are doing to Jackson, you and your libtard ilk would shout Tubman down for being a homophobic bigot as she no doubt would be opposed to a lot of your single voter issues.

On $20 bill, D(emocrat)s replace Andrew Jackson, a founding father of D Party, w Harriet Tubman, a black, gun-toting, evangelical Christian, R(epublican) woman,” @JohnRLottJr tweeted.

[Vidav]

So you know Harriet Tubman was a devout Christian right?

Just to be clear, if we apply today's metric to Tubman like some are doing to Jackson, you and your libtard ilk would shout Tubman down for being a homophobic bigot as she no doubt would be opposed to a lot of your single voter issues.

On $20 bill, D(emocrat)s replace Andrew Jackson, a founding father of D Party, w Harriet Tubman, a black, gun-toting, evangelical Christian, R(epublican) woman,” @JohnRLottJr tweeted.

Back in Jackson's day the Democrats were what we now call Republicans.

[kalm]

Back in Jackson's day the Democrats were what we now call Republicans.

And Republicans used to sign into law legislation such as the Homestead Act, provide land grants for colleges, invest in RR infrastructure, create national parks, and bring suit against large monopolies.

[Ibanez]

Back in Jackson's day the Democrats were what we now call Republicans.

And Republicans used to sign into law legislation such as the Homestead Act, provide land grants for colleges, invest in RR infrastructure, create national parks, and bring suit against large monopolies.

How many times must it explain the platform swap of the two parties?

[DSUrocks07]

And Republicans used to sign into law legislation such as the Homestead Act, provide land grants for colleges, invest in RR infrastructure, create national parks, and bring suit against large monopolies.

How many times must it explain the platform swap of the two parties?

As long as the ENTIRE history of both parties is included.

And the fact is that the platform swap was only so the Democrats could guarantee unquestioned loyalty from minority groups for the "next 200 years", without having to do anything of true substance for them.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[93henfan]

How many times must it explain the platform swap of the two parties?

As long as the ENTIRE history of both parties is included.

And the fact is that the platform swap was only so the Democrats could guarantee unquestioned loyalty from minority groups for the "next 200 years", without having to do anything of true substance for them.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Racist!

[CID1990]

Jim Webb wrote a very good Op-Ed on this subject in the Washington Post.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pwns]

Jim Webb wrote a very good Op-Ed on this subject in the Washington Post.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

Today’s schoolchildren should know and appreciate that Jackson’s July 1832 veto of legislation renewing the charter of the monopolistic Second National Bank prevented the creation of a permanent aristocracy in our country.

So much this. And ironically it was Alexander Hamilton who loved him some overly powerful central banks.

[GannonFan]

Jim Webb wrote a very good Op-Ed on this subject in the Washington Post.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

Today’s schoolchildren should know and appreciate that Jackson’s July 1832 veto of legislation renewing the charter of the monopolistic Second National Bank prevented the creation of a permanent aristocracy in our country.

So much this. And ironically it was Alexander Hamilton who loved him some overly powerful central banks.

And ironically it was Madison who brought about the creation of the Second National Bank (created in 1816 during his administration and then enhanced later during Monroe's administration), a bank that came into existence 12 years after Hamilton died. Hamilton himself actually advocated for the finite life of the First National Bank that he did create as he saw it mainly as a vehicle to retire the debt the US held at the start of the new government so it's logical that he would've opposed Madison's push to have a second one. So while Hamilton is vilified as "...loved him some overly powerful central banks" history would appear to show otherwise. Interestingly enough, it was Hamilton's biggest critics (Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe) who perpetuated the national banks as a way for them to wield power.

And interestingly enough, the "permanent aristocracy" that Jackson did indeed bring about an end to was the line of Jefferson (from Jefferson to Madison to Monroe and then finally to Quincy-Adams) that held onto power as some type of inherited right as the first ultimate Washington DC insiders (Madison was Jefferson's protégée and Sec of State, as was Monroe to Madison, and as was Quincy-Adams to Monroe). Jackson's party had been so attached to power and to the almost monarchial-type sucession to power that it was no wonder that the political party that came into existence to oppose his party, despite his efforts to liberate his party from this tag, was the Whig party (the title Whig being taken from the English political party that represented views that Parliament should be more powerful and that the monarchy's power should be reduced).

[dbackjon]

And Ironically, using slave labor, Jackson created so much personal wealth that his direct descendents don't have to work for a living, but can live off a trust fund.

[Ibanez]

And Ironically, using slave labor, Jackson created so much personal wealth that his direct descendents don't have to work for a living, but can live off a trust fund.

But not as wealthy as Jefferson or Washington.


So what's your point? You really got to get over the slave labor fact. It happened. They were products of their environments/times.

I don't think it's fair to judge them using our morals. We have to understand the era in which they lived and how they conducted themselves overall. Being slaveowners shouldn't be the only aspect by which they should be measured.

I'd bet they would look down on us with disgust with their 18th Century ideals and morals.

[dbackjon]

And Ironically, using slave labor, Jackson created so much personal wealth that his direct descendents don't have to work for a living, but can live off a trust fund.

But not as wealthy as Jefferson or Washington.


So what's your point? You really got to get over the slave labor fact. It happened. They were products of their environments/times.

I don't think it's fair to judge them using our morals. We have to understand the era in which they lived and how they conducted themselves overall. Being slaveowners shouldn't be the only aspect by which they should be measured.

I'd bet they would look down on us with disgust with their 18th Century ideals and morals.

That a person that claimed to be against the aristocracy created one for his own family.

Ironic, huh?


Even by the morals of the mid-1800's, Jackson's actions of Genocide were repugnant.


And there were many that were morally opposed to slavery at the time, recognizing the evil that it is.

[93henfan]

And Ironically, using slave labor, Jackson created so much personal wealth that his direct descendents don't have to work for a living, but can live off a trust fund.

[dbackjon]

And Ironically, using slave labor, Jackson created so much personal wealth that his direct descendents don't have to work for a living, but can live off a trust fund.

What you lookin at, muthafucka?

[GannonFan]

And Ironically, using slave labor, Jackson created so much personal wealth that his direct descendents don't have to work for a living, but can live off a trust fund.

But not as wealthy as Jefferson or Washington.


So what's your point? You really got to get over the slave labor fact. It happened. They were products of their environments/times.

I don't think it's fair to judge them using our morals. We have to understand the era in which they lived and how they conducted themselves overall. Being slaveowners shouldn't be the only aspect by which they should be measured.

I'd bet they would look down on us with disgust with their 18th Century ideals and morals.

Certainly side a little bit with dback on this one. Sure, plenty of those people owned slaves, but there wasn't a monolithic attitude toward slavery even then, i.e. not looking at it from our vantage point in time. Washington, even as a slave holder himself, had plenty of documented concerns about slavery, both personally and for the country, and even went as far as he legally could in terms of setting his own slaves free, unique among the slave-holding Founding Fathers. Jackson came a generation later and there was no evidence really of him being at odds with slavery, even at a later time than Washington. So no, not all slave holders were created equal apparently.

[Ibanez]

But not as wealthy as Jefferson or Washington.


So what's your point? You really got to get over the slave labor fact. It happened. They were products of their environments/times.

I don't think it's fair to judge them using our morals. We have to understand the era in which they lived and how they conducted themselves overall. Being slaveowners shouldn't be the only aspect by which they should be measured.

I'd bet they would look down on us with disgust with their 18th Century ideals and morals.

That a person that claimed to be against the aristocracy created one for his own family.

Ironic, huh?


Even by the morals of the mid-1800's, Jackson's actions of Genocide were repugnant.


And there were many that were morally opposed to slavery at the time, recognizing the evil that it is.

No, I get. There were many that recognized it as a necessary evil as well.



I just find the uproar silly. I mean, give me 1 influential figure in Americas past that has zero bàggage. Washington, Jefferson and Jackson owned slaves. Lincoln suffered from mental illness. Grant was an alcoholic. Franklin was a whore who also was a slave owner...but changed his position on slavery. FDR was an adulterer. Truman

I can't think of anything against Chase or Hamilton. But I'm sure they did or said something naughty.

I'm agree that slavery was evil but no one is perfect. Not even H. Tubman. She'd be crucified by the press today as an evangelical.

In fact, I bet all those people on our money would despise gays.

[dbackjon]

That a person that claimed to be against the aristocracy created one for his own family.

Ironic, huh?


Even by the morals of the mid-1800's, Jackson's actions of Genocide were repugnant.


And there were many that were morally opposed to slavery at the time, recognizing the evil that it is.

No, I get. There were many that recognized it as a necessary evil as well.



I just find the uproar silly. I mean, give me 1 influential figure in Americas past that has zero bàggage. Washington, Jefferson and Jackson owned slaves. Lincoln suffered from mental illness. Grant was an alcoholic. Franklin was a whore who also was a slave owner...but changed his position on slavery. FDR was an adulterer. Truman

I can't think of anything against Chase or Hamilton. But I'm sure they did or said something naughty.

I'm agree that slavery was evil but no one is perfect. Not even H. Tubman. She'd be crucified by the press today as an evangelical.

In fact, I bet all those people on our money would despise gays.

So hey, let's put Hitler on our money - I am sure he did something good, at least once.


Jackson - he hated everyone. It wasn't until the Evangelical furor of the 1820's, where Christian offshoots like Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc were founded, and concepts like the Rapture were invented that America turned more Puritanical.

Baron von Steuben was an indispensable ally and advisor to George Washington, and openly gay. So let's not make too many ASSumptions

[AZGrizFan]

And Ironically, using slave labor, Jackson created so much personal wealth that his direct descendents don't have to work for a living, but can live off a trust fund.

But not as wealthy as Jefferson or Washington.


So what's your point? You really got to get over the slave labor fact. It happened. They were products of their environments/times.

I don't think it's fair to judge them using our morals. We have to understand the era in which they lived and how they conducted themselves overall. Being slaveowners shouldn't be the only aspect by which they should be measured.

I'd bet they would look down on us with disgust with their 18th Century ideals and morals.

Nope, it's a classic democrat move: put historical figures up against todays puritanical values system, and then crucify them for their failures.

See: Columbus, Christopher;