The forum's recent poll has now closed. Though participation was not as high as hoped for, the results were as follows: in response to the question, "Which founder was most vital to the success of the early American republic?," 66% voted for George Washington, while the remaining 33% went to Alexander Hamilton. I must agree that Washington is among individuals most to be credited for his contributions to the nation. He was a true patriot, a stalwart soldier, and a man with a sense of civic conscience which, even in his own day, was a shining example, and which today can scarce be found. It is even doubtful that the newly formed U.S. government under the Constitution would have weathered its first few years of implementation had it not been captained by an individual who possessed so fully the confidence of the nation.
Amazingly, in a nation-wide poll conducted this past spring, Washington did not make it into a list of the top five greatest presidents as ranked by popular opinion (though Bill Clinton came in fourth place). What pitifully short memories we have. From the author of this post, here's to George Washington, the greatest president our great nation has yet been privileged to produce.
30 August 2007
21 August 2007
Forum Posting
In response to The Necessary Spring, Our Founding Truth wrote:
I got railed the first time I used this quote by Madison. Barton says it's unconfirmed, secular progressives like to attack whoever uses it.
James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," went further. Madison declared,"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each of us to govern ourselves ... according to the Ten Commandments of God."
His Memorial and Remonstrance is enough ammo to quell the theistic rationalist label Jon Rowe and other secularists wish to impose upon him. In it, Madison says Christianity is true, the other religions are false, and more importantly, confirms the Lord's use of miracles in the early church.
I'm perturbed why Madison turned on Hamilton, and befriended a man universally known to denounce the Deity of Jesus Christ. I tend to believe Madison was greatly influenced by Jefferson, but did he deny the essentials of the faith, I doubt it.
Rob Scot:
There is no doubt that Madison was influenced by Jefferson. It is interesting to note the extent to which Madison admired Jefferson, to the end that he eventually found himself squaring off politically with his former Federalist co-author. In fact, it was the Madison/Jefferson tandem that, for all intents and purposes, founded the Republican movement in the 1790s. Madison's political transformation during the first decade of the Republic is a topic of which I am aware, though I have not studied it in depth; I would be interested in any suggested book or research on this issue.
In any event, I agree that Madison's religious faith was probably not deeply affected by Jefferson, if at all. This demonstrates a key aspect of the democratic system: one need not be in agreement with the personal beliefs of a colleague in order work productively with them, indeed to accomplish incredible things. This is not hypocrisy, but democracy. It is, however, rather a fine line.
hercules mulligan:
I am not as thoroughly acquainted with the subject of the Madison/Jefferson relationship as I am with other subjects relating to the Founders, however, I do know this:
It is true (as it is interesting) that Madison was greatly influenced by Jefferson, especially when Jefferson returned to America in order to fill his new position as Sec. of State under Pres. Washington. Hamilton commented on this subject in a famous letter to an Edward Carrington of Virginia. As you will see, Hamilton comes from the point of view that Jefferson was Hamilton's antagonist from the very beginning, and caused Hamilton and Madison to become political opponents in order to damage Hamilton's reputation (Hamilton wrote this letter as he was still fuming off from the disappointment of loosing a friend and ally in Madison).
While it is obvious that Jefferson was a political mentor to Madison from the 1790s on, Madison was largely responsible, from what I have seen, for Jefferson's moderation on religious topics. If Madison had not been such a good friend of Jefferson, Jefferson would most probably have espoused the same deism that Paine did (Jefferson was the only Founder that I know of who still welcomed Paine with open arms after the publication of The Age of Reason; Jefferson, as an act of President, ordered Paine to be escorted back to America in a federal man-of-war, much to the outrage of the Federalists and general American public).
Madison also seems to have abandoned several of the principles he once advocated in the Federalist Papers as a result of Jefferson's influence. Historians point out that almost none of the Federalist Papers that are supposed to have been Madison's are found originally in his handwriting. Several numbers are in dispute because Hamilton claimed more numbers than modern historians think he actually wrote. These contested numbers remain contested because there are little or no drafts in Madison's handwriting to settle the issue.
Rob Scot:
Thanks for the contribution; good info. I did a little research myself. Historian Joseph Ellis is of the opinion that the single most important issue which turned Madison against Hamilton and many of the views he had formerly advanced was Hamilton's Report on the Public Credit, and specifically, the federal assumption of state debts. It was not simply that Madison's Virginia (and most of the other Southern colonies) had already repaid most of their wartime debt; Madison's greater concern was that the federal government was consolidating capital at the expense of certain states to the extent that the states would ultimately be compelled to compromise their sovereignty. In the book Founding Brothers, Ellis writes,
" The term (consolidation) conveyed the political fear, so potent among the Antifederalist critics of the constitutional settlement of 1788, that the states would be absorbed by the new federal government . . . If Madison ever managed to convince himself that these historically sanctioned fears had been banished with the creation of the new national government, the debate over assumption demonstrated that they were still very much alive."
Such a line of reasoning for Madison's political transformation makes good sense - if Madison were an uncommitted Federalist. But how does one come to the conclusion that the man arguably most influential in both the drafting and ratification of the Constitution (i.e. the creation of the federal government) was, at heart, not convinced of its right to assume states' debts, thus establishing the national credit while providing a force for domestic unity? I suspect this is where Jefferson, just recently returned from five years in France, comes into the equation.
Our Founding Truth writes:
I tend to agree with hercules mulligan of his assessment in the Madison/Hamilton/Jefferson relationship, but let's not deemphasize the personal aspect of this relationship. Jefferson despised Hamilton, and no doubt relayed his sentiments to Madison. Madison worked with Hamilton, and should have known his character, rather than allowing Jefferson to corrupt his mind. Maybe Madison did reject the fundamentals of Christianity. In 1812, he believed God the Great Spirit, as the one God is the god of all religions, rejecting the First Commandment.
I can see it now, Jefferson convincing Madison that he's dangerous, arrogant, wants an aristocracy with a monarch, an enemy to Republican govt, etc., and Madison bought it. So maybe Hamilton was arrogant, most of them were, and Hamilton thought there was something better than Republican govt. I myself, cannot see that, since govt. ruled by the Law and the Gospel is the pinnacle. However, I am sympathetic of a stronger executive as Britain had, especially now, as our people for the most part, are corrupt.
Take for instance, Hamilton's belief a supreme court decision NEEDS to be executed by the Chief Executive to become law. That is only right and proper. Why didn't Ford or every other President not execute every perverted court decision that was made(roe v wade)? The court should only be able to rule on a case the Congress has authorized them to. This is truly consent of the governed.
In the end, it was personal between them, and Madison was mislead about Hamilton, wrongly accusing him of professional misconduct, and losing a friend.I believe Madison erred by changing his view on govt. supremacy. It seems from Acts 17:26-27, God has ordained nationhood, and that state sovereignty is inferior. The National Charter is based on Biblical Natural Law, which is the highest form of government possible. The states have their rights, but they cannot be superior to the National Charter. The Constitution was more less a covenant between the people, govt, and natural law. Joseph Story elaborates on this in his commentaries.
I got railed the first time I used this quote by Madison. Barton says it's unconfirmed, secular progressives like to attack whoever uses it.
James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," went further. Madison declared,"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each of us to govern ourselves ... according to the Ten Commandments of God."
His Memorial and Remonstrance is enough ammo to quell the theistic rationalist label Jon Rowe and other secularists wish to impose upon him. In it, Madison says Christianity is true, the other religions are false, and more importantly, confirms the Lord's use of miracles in the early church.
I'm perturbed why Madison turned on Hamilton, and befriended a man universally known to denounce the Deity of Jesus Christ. I tend to believe Madison was greatly influenced by Jefferson, but did he deny the essentials of the faith, I doubt it.
Rob Scot:
There is no doubt that Madison was influenced by Jefferson. It is interesting to note the extent to which Madison admired Jefferson, to the end that he eventually found himself squaring off politically with his former Federalist co-author. In fact, it was the Madison/Jefferson tandem that, for all intents and purposes, founded the Republican movement in the 1790s. Madison's political transformation during the first decade of the Republic is a topic of which I am aware, though I have not studied it in depth; I would be interested in any suggested book or research on this issue.
In any event, I agree that Madison's religious faith was probably not deeply affected by Jefferson, if at all. This demonstrates a key aspect of the democratic system: one need not be in agreement with the personal beliefs of a colleague in order work productively with them, indeed to accomplish incredible things. This is not hypocrisy, but democracy. It is, however, rather a fine line.
hercules mulligan:
I am not as thoroughly acquainted with the subject of the Madison/Jefferson relationship as I am with other subjects relating to the Founders, however, I do know this:
It is true (as it is interesting) that Madison was greatly influenced by Jefferson, especially when Jefferson returned to America in order to fill his new position as Sec. of State under Pres. Washington. Hamilton commented on this subject in a famous letter to an Edward Carrington of Virginia. As you will see, Hamilton comes from the point of view that Jefferson was Hamilton's antagonist from the very beginning, and caused Hamilton and Madison to become political opponents in order to damage Hamilton's reputation (Hamilton wrote this letter as he was still fuming off from the disappointment of loosing a friend and ally in Madison).
While it is obvious that Jefferson was a political mentor to Madison from the 1790s on, Madison was largely responsible, from what I have seen, for Jefferson's moderation on religious topics. If Madison had not been such a good friend of Jefferson, Jefferson would most probably have espoused the same deism that Paine did (Jefferson was the only Founder that I know of who still welcomed Paine with open arms after the publication of The Age of Reason; Jefferson, as an act of President, ordered Paine to be escorted back to America in a federal man-of-war, much to the outrage of the Federalists and general American public).
Madison also seems to have abandoned several of the principles he once advocated in the Federalist Papers as a result of Jefferson's influence. Historians point out that almost none of the Federalist Papers that are supposed to have been Madison's are found originally in his handwriting. Several numbers are in dispute because Hamilton claimed more numbers than modern historians think he actually wrote. These contested numbers remain contested because there are little or no drafts in Madison's handwriting to settle the issue.
Rob Scot:
Thanks for the contribution; good info. I did a little research myself. Historian Joseph Ellis is of the opinion that the single most important issue which turned Madison against Hamilton and many of the views he had formerly advanced was Hamilton's Report on the Public Credit, and specifically, the federal assumption of state debts. It was not simply that Madison's Virginia (and most of the other Southern colonies) had already repaid most of their wartime debt; Madison's greater concern was that the federal government was consolidating capital at the expense of certain states to the extent that the states would ultimately be compelled to compromise their sovereignty. In the book Founding Brothers, Ellis writes,
" The term (consolidation) conveyed the political fear, so potent among the Antifederalist critics of the constitutional settlement of 1788, that the states would be absorbed by the new federal government . . . If Madison ever managed to convince himself that these historically sanctioned fears had been banished with the creation of the new national government, the debate over assumption demonstrated that they were still very much alive."
Such a line of reasoning for Madison's political transformation makes good sense - if Madison were an uncommitted Federalist. But how does one come to the conclusion that the man arguably most influential in both the drafting and ratification of the Constitution (i.e. the creation of the federal government) was, at heart, not convinced of its right to assume states' debts, thus establishing the national credit while providing a force for domestic unity? I suspect this is where Jefferson, just recently returned from five years in France, comes into the equation.
Our Founding Truth writes:
I tend to agree with hercules mulligan of his assessment in the Madison/Hamilton/Jefferson relationship, but let's not deemphasize the personal aspect of this relationship. Jefferson despised Hamilton, and no doubt relayed his sentiments to Madison. Madison worked with Hamilton, and should have known his character, rather than allowing Jefferson to corrupt his mind. Maybe Madison did reject the fundamentals of Christianity. In 1812, he believed God the Great Spirit, as the one God is the god of all religions, rejecting the First Commandment.
I can see it now, Jefferson convincing Madison that he's dangerous, arrogant, wants an aristocracy with a monarch, an enemy to Republican govt, etc., and Madison bought it. So maybe Hamilton was arrogant, most of them were, and Hamilton thought there was something better than Republican govt. I myself, cannot see that, since govt. ruled by the Law and the Gospel is the pinnacle. However, I am sympathetic of a stronger executive as Britain had, especially now, as our people for the most part, are corrupt.
Take for instance, Hamilton's belief a supreme court decision NEEDS to be executed by the Chief Executive to become law. That is only right and proper. Why didn't Ford or every other President not execute every perverted court decision that was made(roe v wade)? The court should only be able to rule on a case the Congress has authorized them to. This is truly consent of the governed.
In the end, it was personal between them, and Madison was mislead about Hamilton, wrongly accusing him of professional misconduct, and losing a friend.I believe Madison erred by changing his view on govt. supremacy. It seems from Acts 17:26-27, God has ordained nationhood, and that state sovereignty is inferior. The National Charter is based on Biblical Natural Law, which is the highest form of government possible. The states have their rights, but they cannot be superior to the National Charter. The Constitution was more less a covenant between the people, govt, and natural law. Joseph Story elaborates on this in his commentaries.
15 August 2007
The Necessary Spring
Anyone who has conducted much research into the thought and writings of the men (and women) who were responsible for shaping the American nation at the time of its founding must come to the conclusion that one of the most highly revered words, arguably falling just behind "liberty," was "virtue". Time and again this word surfaces in the writings, both public and private, of the Founders; and it does not seem to them to be a simple matter of opinion and personal discipline, but an issue vital to the success of the new nation (see This Week's Quote, by Sam Adams, on the left sidebar).
The reasons for this concern are clear enough. If a government derives its authority from the people, then it is in the interest of every individual that the people as a whole exhibit a generally strong character and sense of virtue. In a democratic republic, a virtuous people produce a virtuous government; conversely, a corrupt people produce a corrupt government. Theoretically, under a strong monarchical system, the depraved in a populace could at least be held in check by a virtuous and wise monarch, upon whom the welfare of the nation hung (realistically, the record of foolish and debauched monarchs soundly outstrips the "philosopher kings"); in a republic, there was no such safeguard. The people themselves being ultimately answerable for the state of the nation, it is little wonder that the nation's leaders were eager to exalt the ideal of the virtuous and enlightened citizen.
I have heard it said that the idea of virtue in early America was centered upon public behavior and civic duty, as opposed to the more personal and moral connotations which the word carries today. I do not doubt that this is so. And yet, in examining the statements of some of our most esteemed Founders, one must feel that the type of virtue they often had in mind had a good deal more of the good ol' religious virtue, with all its trappings of morality, than many today would care to admit. In his Farewell Address, George Washington wrote, "Tis substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government." This much has already been established. However, in the lines directly preceding this statement, Washington baldly states the means for bringing about this "virtue or morality." He stated,
"And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influences of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles."
Washington was not alone in this belief. John Adams wrote, "Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," went further. Madison declared,
"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each of us to govern ourselves ... according to the Ten Commandments of God."
To these men, a disintegration of religion in society meant the death knell of virtue, and therefore, America. We could do worse than to pay heed to these voices from our past.
The reasons for this concern are clear enough. If a government derives its authority from the people, then it is in the interest of every individual that the people as a whole exhibit a generally strong character and sense of virtue. In a democratic republic, a virtuous people produce a virtuous government; conversely, a corrupt people produce a corrupt government. Theoretically, under a strong monarchical system, the depraved in a populace could at least be held in check by a virtuous and wise monarch, upon whom the welfare of the nation hung (realistically, the record of foolish and debauched monarchs soundly outstrips the "philosopher kings"); in a republic, there was no such safeguard. The people themselves being ultimately answerable for the state of the nation, it is little wonder that the nation's leaders were eager to exalt the ideal of the virtuous and enlightened citizen.
I have heard it said that the idea of virtue in early America was centered upon public behavior and civic duty, as opposed to the more personal and moral connotations which the word carries today. I do not doubt that this is so. And yet, in examining the statements of some of our most esteemed Founders, one must feel that the type of virtue they often had in mind had a good deal more of the good ol' religious virtue, with all its trappings of morality, than many today would care to admit. In his Farewell Address, George Washington wrote, "Tis substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government." This much has already been established. However, in the lines directly preceding this statement, Washington baldly states the means for bringing about this "virtue or morality." He stated,
"And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influences of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles."
Washington was not alone in this belief. John Adams wrote, "Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," went further. Madison declared,
"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each of us to govern ourselves ... according to the Ten Commandments of God."
To these men, a disintegration of religion in society meant the death knell of virtue, and therefore, America. We could do worse than to pay heed to these voices from our past.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)