Founding Fathers Battle Gun Grabbers From the Grave

page: 2
40
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by WaterBottle
Did you guys know George Washington and Hamilton started the first "federal reserve"?

And went to war with the American people for rebelling against a tax?


The Whiskey Rebellion, or Whiskey Insurrection, was a tax protest in the United States beginning in 1791, during the presidency of George Washington. Farmers who used their leftover grain and corn in the form of whiskey as a medium of exchange were forced to pay a new tax. The tax was a part of treasury secretary Alexander Hamilton's program to increase central government power, in particular to fund his policy of assuming the war debt of those states which had failed to pay. The farmers who resisted, many war veterans, contended that they were fighting for the principles of the American Revolution, in particular against taxation without local representation, while the Federal government maintained the taxes were the legal expression of the taxation powers of Congress.

Throughout counties in Western Pennsylvania, protesters used violence and intimidation to prevent federal officials from collecting the tax. Resistance came to a climax in July 1794, when a U.S. marshal arrived in western Pennsylvania to serve writs to distillers who had not paid the excise. The alarm was raised, and more than 500 armed men attacked the fortified home of tax inspector General John Neville. Washington responded by sending peace commissioners to western Pennsylvania to negotiate with the rebels, while at the same time calling on governors to send a militia force to enforce the tax. With 13,000 militia provided by the governors of Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, Washington rode at the head of an army to suppress the insurgency. The rebels all went home before the arrival of the army, and there was no confrontation. About 20 men were arrested, but all were later acquitted or pardoned.


en.wikipedia.org...


The First Bank of the United States was a central bank, chartered for a term of twenty years, by the United States Congress on February 25, 1791. Establishment of the Bank was included in a three-part expansion of federal fiscal and monetary power (along with a federal mint and excise taxes) championed by Alexander Hamilton, first Secretary of the Treasury. Hamilton believed a central bank was necessary to stabilize and improve the nation's credit, and to improve handling of the financial business of the United States government under the newly enacted Constitution.


en.wikipedia.org...

If you're gonna worship banking puppets like a large amount of the founding fathers, you might as well worship Obama.

Not to mention most of them had no problem owning other human beings as property, raping and abusing them.

Pick better Americans to idolize please.
edit on 23-1-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)



Part two Your terms and nobody else "The First Federal Reserve" All that is needed to rebutt your stance on this.Is part of your quote.




Hamilton, first Secretary of the Treasury. Hamilton believed a central bank was necessary to stabilize and improve the nation's credit, and to improve handling of the financial business of the United States government under the newly enacted Constitution


If you believe he was such a evil man.Why would he be looking out for his country?Afterall in your quote you cited his belief not me I just pointed it out to you.
edit on 23-1-2013 by rockymcgilicutty because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 09:34 PM
link   
infowars just posted another article, that is a simple, yet important reminder:

The American Revolution Started Over Disarmament




The American revolution started on April 19, 1775 in response to an attempt by the British regulars to disarm the militia of their stockpiles near Lexington. It became the shot heard ’round the world. The subsequent Constitution and Bill of Rights set up checks and balances, in part as a response to various types of British abuse and interference.

Today, the establishment has openly violated much the Constitution and Bill of Rights, wantonly spied on communications without warrant and staked TSA agents at airports to abuse the traveling public despite the 4th Amendment, and has conducted a long train of abuses. Now it seeks to dismantle the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms, removing yet another important check on government power.


www.infowars.com...

Will the next "shot heard round the world" be started when there is a federal raid attempt on a determined militia, fed up with the feds?

Or could it even start in the military itself, with divisions reaching such a heated climax, that some soldiers take it upon themselves to revolt?

Or how about a scene where feds attempt to confiscate newly banned firearms in a state where sheriffs are determined to hold their line?

All possible, imo. But I have a sinking feeling that the SECOND one of these situations occurs and makes national news, things have reached such a tipping point that it will ignite "the shot heard right around our living rooms". But I could be wrong. And let's all hope so, I guess.

It's just too bad that demands have not been enough. Power now only concedes anything with a gun to their heads. And without any guns at all, power will most DEFINITELY concede absolutely nothing.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 11:54 PM
link   
In a nut shell.....








Some people JUST DON'T GET IT...!



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


I am not only hearing what your saying, I'm feeling it. I strongly agree with everything you have put forth. I have no idea for the life of me where it became acceptable to speak of the second amendment as a hand me down hunting license or to be used as a means of home defense.

That right is there for one thing and one thing only. To prevent tyrannical government and ensure our government stays by the people and for the people. Slow and methodical MSM brainwashing has deceived people into thinking this concept is outdated when in fact, it has never been a bigger threat than right now.

The federal government has over reached on every issue it has sought to regulate and has become bloated, wasteful and cancerous to our republic. It acts like a coke whore, never getting enough of anything weather it be money money, power, oil or death and it spends like a drug addict, every day making poor decisions in the moment with no care for Americans future.

It is sickening and profane. I don't have all the answers either but I definitely can point out the problems and they start with the federal government, lobbyists and international bankers who continue to legislate laws that are in conflict with our constitution or bypass legislation all together by way of executive order and are not a benefit to the people but instead serve to conglomerate wealth for the super rich and facilitate further corporate expansionism.

We as a people are the last bastion against global tyranny and we must not close our eyes nor suspect to think that freedom does not come at a price. When you do put a price tag on something like freedom, it is often more expensive than the average person is willing to spend but what you get for your "money" is the ultimate purchase for all of us here on Earth.

Enjoy it while we still have it, as who knows how long it may last.
edit on 24-1-2013 by Helious because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 02:45 AM
link   
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty
 





If you believe he was such a evil man.Why would he be looking out for his country?Afterall in your quote you cited his belief not me I just pointed it out to you.


He wasn't looking out for the country. He was lookign out for the bankers.


Hamilton retired and became a BANKER himself.


Hamilton was elected to the Continental Congress from New York. He resigned to practice law and founded the Bank of New York.

en.wikipedia.org...

I bet you believe Bernake is looking out for the country too.



Like most of the Southern members of Congress, neither Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson nor Representative James Madison had any particular interest in two of Hamilton's tripartite recommendations: the establishing of an official government Mint, and the chartering of the Bank of the United States. They believed this centralization of power away from local banks was dangerous to a sound monetary system and was mostly to the benefit of business interests in the commercial north, not southern agricultural interests, arguing that the right to own property would be infringed by these proposals. Furthermore, they contended that the creation of such a bank violated the Constitution, which specifically stated that congress was to regulate weights and measures and issue coined money (rather than mint and bills of credit)


However, unlike the Bank of England from which Hamilton drew much of his inspiration, the primary function of the Bank would be commercial and private interests. The business it would be involved in on behalf of the federal government—a depository for collected taxes, making short term loans to the government to cover real or potential temporary income gaps, serving as a holding site for both incoming and outgoing monies—was considered highly important but still secondary in nature


en.wikipedia.org...




Part two Your terms and nobody else "The First Federal Reserve" All that is needed to rebutt your stance on this.Is part of your quote.


It was the first central bank of the USA, that is what he federal reserve is. It operated nearly just like the Fed, it was a private bank.

edit on 24-1-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 03:20 AM
link   
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty
 





So while they were enforcing the Constitution.They were if fact prodecting it.Hmmm...sounds like men of their word to me.


The word of federalist banking scum.


The issue is the motivation behind the Whiskey Act.

edit on 24-1-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 03:23 AM
link   
reply to post by WaterBottle
 


So, what is your suggestion then, since you seem to be so knowledgeable.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 03:44 AM
link   
reply to post by dave_welch
 


To not white wash history and idolize people you would be against in the present day.

If Obama was signing the "National Bank of the USA act" today you would be soooooooooo mad at it.

If Obama was waging war against tax protestors, most of you would be sooooooooooo mad at it, calling him a tyrant, federal government stealing from my pay check, corporate scum etc.

People were using whiskey as money back then, bartering goods. The bankers could not have that, they needed control and a monopoly on paper money. The whiskey tax also shut a lot of small distilleries down because the tax rate favored BIG business.


[size=4.5]Small farmers also protested that Hamilton's excise effectively gave unfair tax breaks to large distillers, most of whom were based in the east There were two methods of paying the whiskey excise: paying a flat fee or paying by the gallon. Large distillers produced whiskey in volume and could afford the flat fee. The more efficient they became, the less tax per gallon they would pay (as low as 6 cents according to Hamilton). Western farmers who owned small stills did not usually operate them year-round at full capacity, so they ended up paying a higher tax per gallon (9 cents), which made them less competitive.[14] Small distillers believed Hamilton deliberately designed the tax to ruin them and promote big business, a view endorsed by some historians.[15] However, historian Thomas Slaughter argued that a "conspiracy of this sort is difficult to document".[16] Whether by design or not, large distillers recognized the advantage the excise gave them, and they supported the tax.[17]


en.wikipedia.org...


The federal tax rate was lower on larger stills, thus favoring bigger businesses at the expense of small, family-run operations. And the federal tax had to be paid in, of all things, gold or silver coin, of which there were precious few during the best of times on the frontier. As a result, the new tax almost immediately destroyed the value of whiskey as a form of barter currency in its own right. But without whiskey to lubricate the wheels of commerce, the frontier economy soon began to grind to a standstill.

Read more: The Whiskey Rebellion dailyreckoning.com...
edit on 24-1-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)
edit on 24-1-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Its intent was to give the people the means by which to have a last recourse of armament against tyrannical government:


So much for the "but they didn't know what weapons would be available today" excuse.


You can't fight a tyrannical government with muskets. It would be fair to say you would need weapons equal to what the tyrannical government has.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 04:18 AM
link   
reply to post by mantarey
 





I stand behind the ideals, not the men, for we are all flawed at the end of the day and we evolve as men and women to live up to those ideals.


A lot of them were federalists. Most ATS members would not agree with their ideals. Most people in general would not agree with them, they were banking puppets. It's disingenuous to group the "founding fathers" in one ideology.


The Federalist Party was the first American political party, from the early 1790s to 1816, the era of the First Party System, with remnants lasting into the 1820s. The Federalists controlled the federal government until 1801. The party was formed by Alexander Hamilton, who, during George Washington's first term, built a network of supporters, largely urban bankers and businessmen, to support his fiscal policies. These supporters grew into the Federalist Party committed to a fiscally sound and nationalistic government. The United States' only Federalist president was John Adams; although George Washington was broadly sympathetic to the Federalist program, he remained an independent his entire presidency.[1]

The Federalist policies called for a national bank, tariffs, and good relations with Britain as expressed in the Jay Treaty negotiated in 1794. Hamilton developed the concept of implied powers, and successfully argued the adoption of that interpretation of the United States Constitution. Their political opponents, the Democratic-Republicans, led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, denounced most of the Federalist policies, especially the bank and implied powers, and vehemently attacked the Jay Treaty as a sell-out of republican values to the British monarchy. The Jay Treaty passed, and indeed the Federalists won most of the major legislative battles in the 1790s. They held a strong base in the nation's cities and in New England. The Democratic-Republicans, with their base in the rural South, won the hard-fought election of 1800; the Federalists never returned to power. The Federalists, too wedded to an upper-class style to win the support of ordinary voters,[original research?] grew weaker year by year. They recovered some strength by intense opposition to the War of 1812; they practically vanished during the Era of Good Feelings that followed the end of the war in 1815.[2]

The Federalists left a lasting imprint as they fashioned a strong new government with a sound financial base, and (in the person of Chief Justice John Marshall) decisively shaped Supreme Court policies for another three decades


en.wikipedia.org...

Both parties we have today are federalists. They represent the banking and financial elite, not we he people. Some of the founding fathers were this.

Federalist No. 84 - Written by Alexander Hamilton


I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?

I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights./ex]

press-pubs.uchicago.edu...



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 04:24 AM
link   
But of course Hamilton would find the bill of rights dangerous. He was for the Alien and Sedition Acts that destroyed freedom of speech and imprisoned anti-federalists for being critical of the federalist banking puppet party.


In 1798 the Alien and Sedition Acts were signed into law by President John Adams in response to fears of an impending war with France. These acts, consisting of four laws passed by the Federalist-controlled Congress, increased the residency requirement for American citizenship from five to 14 years, authorized the president to imprison or deport aliens considered "dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States" and restricted speech critical of the government. While the Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton and Adams, argued that these laws were passed to protect the United States from foreign invaders and propagandists, Democratic-Republicans, led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, saw the Alien and Sedition Acts as a direct threat to individual liberty and the First Amendment by a tyrannical government.

The Alien and Sedition Acts were fiercely debated in the press, which was overtly partisan at the time. Many editors of Democratic-Republican-sponsored newspapers vehemently opposed the new laws, in particular the Sedition Act, which made speaking openly against the government a crime of libel punishable by fine and even prison time. Federalists sought to quell dissent by prosecuting those who violated the Sedition Act to the fullest extent of the law. Accounts vary about the number of arrests and indictments that occurred as a result of the passage of the Sedition Act of 1798. Most scholars cite 25 arrests and at least 17 verifiable indictments – 14 under the Sedition Act and three under common law. Ten indictments went to trial, all resulting in convictions.1 Because these laws were designed to silence and weaken the Democratic-Republican Party, most of the victims of the sedition prosecutions were Democratic-Republican journalists who openly criticized Adams’ presidency and the Federalists.2 All but one of the indicted individuals – James Callender, from Thomas Jefferson’s home state of Virginia – were from the Federalist-dominated New England and Middle Atlantic states.3 Symbolically enough, Callender’s sentence ended on March 3, 1801, the day Sedition Act expired.

www.firstamendmentcenter.org...



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by WaterBottle
 


Again I love how you quote only the parts of your source,That fit your opinion,you only bend your data to fit your mold.Here is another quote from your source.




In 1791, The first Bank of the United States was brought into being as one of the three major financial innovations proposed and supported by Hamilton, first Secretary of the Treasury. In addition to the national bank, the other two measures were establishment of a mint and imposition of a federal excise tax. Three goals of Hamilton's three measures were to.


Establish financial order, clarity and precedence in and of the newly formed United States

Establish credit—both in country and overseas—for the new nation

To resolve the issue of the fiat currency, issued by the Continental Congress immediately prior to and during the United States Revolutionary War—the "Continen



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by WaterBottle
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty
 





So while they were enforcing the Constitution.They were if fact prodecting it.Hmmm...sounds like men of their word to me.


The word of federalist banking scum.


The issue is the motivation behind the Whiskey Act.

edit on 24-1-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)


Wrong again





As part of the compromises that led to the adoption of the United States Constitution in 1789, the new Federal government agreed to assume the Revolutionary War debts of the 13 States. In early 1791, to help pay off the resulting national debt, Congress used its new constitutional authority to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises" and passed the first nationwide internal revenue tax—an excise tax on distilled spirits.[1] Congress took this action at the urging of the first Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton



I will acknowledge that Hamilton pushed the act.But only to reclaim monies to repay war debt that the federal goverment assumed from the states.It was also the first tax levied by CONGRESS and the first time CONGRESS
enforced the Constitution.So to lay it at the feet of two men makes you a uninformed fool with a personal agenda.


www.ttb.gov...



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Umm, any chance we could get back to discussing the contents of the OP, and possibly the proposal I have, instead of running interference by trying to discredit the founding fathers? This does get old.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by WaterBottle
reply to post by dave_welch
 


To not white wash history and idolize people you would be against in the present day.

If Obama was signing the "National Bank of the USA act" today you would be soooooooooo mad at it.

If Obama was waging war against tax protestors, most of you would be sooooooooooo mad at it, calling him a tyrant, federal government stealing from my pay check, corporate scum etc.

People were using whiskey as money back then, bartering goods. The bankers could not have that, they needed control and a monopoly on paper money. The whiskey tax also shut a lot of small distilleries down because the tax rate favored BIG business.


[size=4.5]Small farmers also protested that Hamilton's excise effectively gave unfair tax breaks to large distillers, most of whom were based in the east There were two methods of paying the whiskey excise: paying a flat fee or paying by the gallon. Large distillers produced whiskey in volume and could afford the flat fee. The more efficient they became, the less tax per gallon they would pay (as low as 6 cents according to Hamilton). Western farmers who owned small stills did not usually operate them year-round at full capacity, so they ended up paying a higher tax per gallon (9 cents), which made them less competitive.[14] Small distillers believed Hamilton deliberately designed the tax to ruin them and promote big business, a view endorsed by some historians.[15] However, historian Thomas Slaughter argued that a "conspiracy of this sort is difficult to document".[16] Whether by design or not, large distillers recognized the advantage the excise gave them, and they supported the tax.[17]


en.wikipedia.org...


The federal tax rate was lower on larger stills, thus favoring bigger businesses at the expense of small, family-run operations. And the federal tax had to be paid in, of all things, gold or silver coin, of which there were precious few during the best of times on the frontier. As a result, the new tax almost immediately destroyed the value of whiskey as a form of barter currency in its own right. But without whiskey to lubricate the wheels of commerce, the frontier economy soon began to grind to a standstill.

Read more: The Whiskey Rebellion dailyreckoning.com...
edit on 24-1-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)
edit on 24-1-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)


Did you mention that Washington was a whiskey maker himself? Had a rather large operation for his day. They have even rebuilt his distillery out there at Mt. Vernon.

And yea it always has seemed like a conflict of interest to me.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by g146541
 




Me, I write the politicians, yep even my idiots here in Kalifornia, I go to rallies, I spread the message, all without blowing up and causing a panic.

That is exactly what the Founding Fathers were doing when the King declared them to be traitors and terrorists. As usual, the government started that shooting war. If similar events happen again in the US, it will also be started by the government.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by WaterBottle
reply to post by mantarey
 





I stand behind the ideals, not the men, for we are all flawed at the end of the day and we evolve as men and women to live up to those ideals.


A lot of them were federalists. Most ATS members would not agree with their ideals. Most people in general would not agree with them, they were banking puppets. It's disingenuous to group the "founding fathers" in one ideology.


The Federalist Party was the first American political party, from the early 1790s to 1816, the era of the First Party System, with remnants lasting into the 1820s. The Federalists controlled the federal government until 1801. The party was formed by Alexander Hamilton, who, during George Washington's first term, built a network of supporters, largely urban bankers and businessmen, to support his fiscal policies. These supporters grew into the Federalist Party committed to a fiscally sound and nationalistic government. The United States' only Federalist president was John Adams; although George Washington was broadly sympathetic to the Federalist program, he remained an independent his entire presidency.[1]

The Federalist policies called for a national bank, tariffs, and good relations with Britain as expressed in the Jay Treaty negotiated in 1794. Hamilton developed the concept of implied powers, and successfully argued the adoption of that interpretation of the United States Constitution. Their political opponents, the Democratic-Republicans, led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, denounced most of the Federalist policies, especially the bank and implied powers, and vehemently attacked the Jay Treaty as a sell-out of republican values to the British monarchy........[2]

The Federalists left a lasting imprint as they fashioned a strong new government with a sound financial base, and (in the person of Chief Justice John Marshall) decisively shaped Supreme Court policies for another three decades


en.wikipedia.org...



Madison did however argue against protests made that the FG would have unlimited rights to tax under the "promote the general welfare of the people" clause. The protests had to do with the wording which many strong opposers felt would be an open door for any form of taxation. Madison brushed them aside in Fed 41#.


Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.


"Misconstruction" he called it! Look at what it has become today!

FED 41#



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:26 AM
link   
So the founding fathers were hoping we'd arm ourselves. I believe that the notion of the day was the second amendment was needed so local and sometimes private militias could be armed. Ask yourselves why "Freedom of the press" mattered when the richest .5% of the nation could own a printing press and about 5% of the nation had the money to buy a newspaper daily. The founding fathers (with the exception of Jefferson) must be rolling in their graves.

www.aclufl.org...

old.disinfo.com...


Mason, who is occasionally brushed off and set upright by modern libertarians as an early defender of individual rights, was hardly an idealist himself. [2] He sought protection for Southern shipping interests in the form of a two-thirds majority for commercial legislation, in an attempt to guarantee his own fortune and the continued import of slaves. [3] Back in Virginia, Mason supported limiting the voting franchise to landholders like himself and affirming the freedom to bear arms only within the context of a "well regulated militia," rather than allowing individuals to own their own guns. [4] And this was the one person to initiate discussion of a Bill and one of only three who declined to sign the Bill-less Constitution in 1787.
edit on 24-1-2013 by MisterMandlebrot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Umm, any chance we could get back to discussing the contents of the OP, and possibly the proposal I have, instead of running interference by trying to discredit the founding fathers? This does get old.


Sorry I felt the need to defend them before I replied.But you are right we should get back on topic.Here is a anonymous quote I picked up recently.

"The Constitution is our bread and butter,but remember Washington did not defeat tyranny with the first admendment, he used bullets."



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by WaterBottle
reply to post by mantarey
 





I stand behind the ideals, not the men, for we are all flawed at the end of the day and we evolve as men and women to live up to those ideals.


A lot of them were federalists. Most ATS members would not agree with their ideals. Most people in general would not agree with them, they were banking puppets. It's disingenuous to group the "founding fathers" in one ideology.




The Federalist policies called for a national bank, tariffs, and good relations with Britain as expressed in the Jay Treaty negotiated in 1794. Hamilton developed the concept of implied powers, and successfully argued the adoption of that interpretation of the United States Constitution. Their political opponents, the Democratic-Republicans, led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, denounced most of the Federalist policies, especially the bank and implied powers, and vehemently attacked the Jay Treaty as a sell-out of republican values to the British monarchy. The Jay Treaty passed, and indeed the Federalists won most of the major legislative battles in the 1790s. They held a strong base in the nation's cities and in New England. The Democratic-Republicans, with their base in the rural South, won the hard-fought election of 1800; the Federalists never returned to power. The Federalists, too wedded to an upper-class style to win the support of ordinary voters,[original research?] grew weaker year by year. They recovered some strength by intense opposition to the War of 1812; they practically vanished during the Era of Good Feelings that followed the end of the war in 1815.[2]

The Federalists left a lasting imprint as they fashioned a strong new government with a sound financial base, and (in the person of Chief Justice John Marshall) decisively shaped Supreme Court policies for another three decades


en.wikipedia.org...

Both parties we have today are federalists. They represent the banking and financial elite, not we he people. Some of the founding fathers were this.




Below, 1819, was a result of the american bank and thus american economy being propped up by a european war....British/French. Yet in the end the american bank ended up looking like the land and property confiscator general. What we see here is the first majior result of the american bank and its ties to Europen interests having a nagative result and Ohio trying to strike back in the face the american central bank protecting its own interests and those of its european associates.


Text The Supreme Court agreed with the federal government's position, contending that the federal government and its institutions were superior to the state governments. Chief Justice John Marshall believed that "The power to tax is the power to destroy." In other words, if the states could tax the federal government, the states had the power to destroy the federal government.



The Panic of 1819 and the Banking Crisis left many Ohioans destitute. Thousands of people lost their land due to their inability to pay off their mortgages. United States factory owners also had a difficult time competing with earlier-established factories in Europe


Read Between The Lines






top topics



 
40
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join