Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: "A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, being necessary to THE SECURITY of a free state..." Some facts for you [View all]Ghost in the Machine
(14,912 posts)205. The same Alexander Hamilton, who boasted of being in 10 duels, before being killed in the 11th one..
... by a SITTING VICE PRESIDENT, Aaron Burr? The same Alexander Hamilton whose son was killed in a duel in 1801?
Additionally, Hamilton's son, Philip, was killed in a November 23, 1801 duel with George I. Eacker, initiated after Philip and his friend Richard Price engaged in "hooliganish" behavior in Eacker's box at the Park Theatre. This was in response to a speech, critical of Hamilton, that Eacker had made on July 3, 1801. Philip and his friend both challenged Eacker to duels when he called them "damned rascals."[7] After Price's duel (also at Weehawken) resulted in nothing more than four missed shots, Hamilton advised his son to delope (throw away his fire). However, after both Philip and Eacker stood shotless for a minute after the command "present", Philip leveled his pistol, causing Eacker to fire, mortally wounding Philip and sending his shot awry. This duel is often cited as having a tremendous psychological impact on Hamilton in the context of the Hamilton-Burr duel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burr%E2%80%93Hamilton_duel
If I'm reading correctly, the Federalists were todays version of the neo-cons and the teabaggers. They were the corporatists, who favored corporations and bankers over the People:
Intellectually, Federalists, while devoted to liberty held profoundly conservative views atuned to the American character. As Samuel Eliot Morison explained, They believed that liberty is inseparable from union, that men are essentially unequal, that vox populi [voice of the people] is seldom if ever vox Dei [the voice of God], and that sinister outside influences are busy undermining American integrity.[30] Historian Patrick Allitt concludes that Federalists promoted many positions that would form the baseline for later American conservatism, including the rule of law under the Constitution, republican government, peaceful change through elections, judicial supremacy, stable national finances, credible and active diplomacy, and protection of wealth.[31]
The Federalists were dominated by businessmen and merchants in the major cities who supported a strong national government. The party was closely linked to the modernizing, urbanizing, financial policies of Alexander Hamilton. These policies included the funding of the national debt and also assumption of state debts incurred during the Revolutionary War, the incorporation of a national Bank of the United States, the support of manufactures and industrial development, and the use of a tariff to fund the Treasury. In foreign affairs the Federalists opposed the French Revolution, engaged in the "Quasi War" (an undeclared naval war) with France in 179899, sought good relations with Britain and sought a strong army and navy. Ideologically the controversy between Republicans and Federalists stemmed from a difference of principle and style. In terms of style the Federalists distrusted the public, thought the elite should be in charge, and favored national power over state power. Republicans distrusted Britain, bankers, merchants and did not want a powerful national government. The Federalists, notably Hamilton, were distrustful of "the people," the French, and the Republicans.[32] In the end, the nation synthesized the two positions, adopting representative democracy and a strong nation state. Just as importantly, American politics by the 1820s accepted the two-party system whereby rival parties stake their claims before the electorate, and the winner takes control of the government.
As time went on, the Federalists lost appeal with the average voter and were generally not equal to the tasks of party organization; hence, they grew steadily weaker as the political triumphs of the Republican Party grew.[33] For economic and philosophical reasons, the Federalists tended to be pro-British the United States engaged in more trade with Great Britain than with any other country and vociferously opposed Jefferson's Embargo Act of 1807 and the seemingly deliberate provocation of war with Britain by the Madison Administration. During "Mr. Madison's War", as they called it, the Federalists made a temporary comeback.[34] However they lost all their gains and more during the patriotic euphoria that followed the war. The membership was aging rapidly,[35] but a few young men from New England did join the cause, most notably Daniel Webster.
The Federalists were dominated by businessmen and merchants in the major cities who supported a strong national government. The party was closely linked to the modernizing, urbanizing, financial policies of Alexander Hamilton. These policies included the funding of the national debt and also assumption of state debts incurred during the Revolutionary War, the incorporation of a national Bank of the United States, the support of manufactures and industrial development, and the use of a tariff to fund the Treasury. In foreign affairs the Federalists opposed the French Revolution, engaged in the "Quasi War" (an undeclared naval war) with France in 179899, sought good relations with Britain and sought a strong army and navy. Ideologically the controversy between Republicans and Federalists stemmed from a difference of principle and style. In terms of style the Federalists distrusted the public, thought the elite should be in charge, and favored national power over state power. Republicans distrusted Britain, bankers, merchants and did not want a powerful national government. The Federalists, notably Hamilton, were distrustful of "the people," the French, and the Republicans.[32] In the end, the nation synthesized the two positions, adopting representative democracy and a strong nation state. Just as importantly, American politics by the 1820s accepted the two-party system whereby rival parties stake their claims before the electorate, and the winner takes control of the government.
As time went on, the Federalists lost appeal with the average voter and were generally not equal to the tasks of party organization; hence, they grew steadily weaker as the political triumphs of the Republican Party grew.[33] For economic and philosophical reasons, the Federalists tended to be pro-British the United States engaged in more trade with Great Britain than with any other country and vociferously opposed Jefferson's Embargo Act of 1807 and the seemingly deliberate provocation of war with Britain by the Madison Administration. During "Mr. Madison's War", as they called it, the Federalists made a temporary comeback.[34] However they lost all their gains and more during the patriotic euphoria that followed the war. The membership was aging rapidly,[35] but a few young men from New England did join the cause, most notably Daniel Webster.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Party#Interpretations
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. 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
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. 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
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Party
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
217 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
"A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, being necessary to THE SECURITY of a free state..." Some facts for you [View all]
TrollBuster9090
Mar 2013
OP
The same Alexander Hamilton, who boasted of being in 10 duels, before being killed in the 11th one..
Ghost in the Machine
Mar 2013
#205
"Take the guns away" is an extreme characterization. I know lots of people interested in more
patrice
Mar 2013
#7
Seriously? You believe everyone on the internet is honest? ... is what they portray themselves as?
patrice
Mar 2013
#10
None of which justifies the dysfunctions that we are seeing. Some FEW idiots propose to take the gun
patrice
Mar 2013
#21
ALL? You fail to notice that I asked you earlier WHAT PERCENTAGE. Why did you fail to notice that?
patrice
Mar 2013
#138
And, btw, you're saying NONE of them are, so you negate your own (mistaken) critique of my position.
patrice
Mar 2013
#139
And you think all of that stuff is authentic? If not, what percentage would you guess might not be
patrice
Mar 2013
#23
That's either, intentionally or otherwise, naive, or dishonest. In either case, you just proved #21
patrice
Mar 2013
#29
Astro-turfing from both directions. Corporate gun-persons are not sitting on the sidelines here. nt
patrice
Mar 2013
#132
Most of the pro gun organizations show a much wider contributor base than the anti gun ones
ProgressiveProfessor
Mar 2013
#145
Thanks for that info. Just thinking gun manufacturers, such as those on the board of NRA, and
patrice
Mar 2013
#149
You have not been around long enough to give your statement much weight
ProgressiveProfessor
Mar 2013
#24
A suitable retort to someone making such broad statements as you did
ProgressiveProfessor
Mar 2013
#143
Zombies usually betray themselves over time. Some even own up to it
ProgressiveProfessor
Mar 2013
#182
Just skimmed the TOS and can't find where answering the question is a violation
Progressive dog
Mar 2013
#184
You did see the poster in the thread who said they support total confiscation?
ProgressiveProfessor
Mar 2013
#185
Anyone that would use a firearm against an LEO for *any* reason , even a legitimate one, will
Ikonoklast
Mar 2013
#163
Thank you for this. So sad isn't it, even when one may in fact be VERY right, violence makes you
patrice
Mar 2013
#4
The theme of Federalist Paper 46 is no different from Federalist Paper 49
TrollBuster9090
Mar 2013
#44
"And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes."
ieoeja
Mar 2013
#123
But Madison also couldn't conceive that the people and states would need/want to endlessly
jmg257
Mar 2013
#135
He's claiming here that *facts* bore him, as they almost uniformly do our "pro gun progressives"*
apocalypsehow
Mar 2013
#80
So you joined DU just to say the lie that technology has advanced too much to enforce laws?
SunSeeker
Mar 2013
#16
And that would work on exactly the people you dont need to worry about...
TampaAnimusVortex
Mar 2013
#33
Right now. My point was in 5 years, they will be on practically every desktop around.
TampaAnimusVortex
Mar 2013
#41
You really dont expect such a transparent attempt at dodging to work do you?
TampaAnimusVortex
Mar 2013
#115
What's the problem? Why not start with existing problems that we know about NOW...i.e.
jmg257
Mar 2013
#116
I disagree. There are no laws that will ever solve this, even remotely.
TampaAnimusVortex
Mar 2013
#120
As mentioned in another post...may be appropriate cause for regulating ammo and reloading
jmg257
Mar 2013
#122
Why do I get the feeling they've been re-running WEIRD SCIENCE on late night TV?
TrollBuster9090
Mar 2013
#194
That is a fairly Luddite approach and will be no better than its namesake
ProgressiveProfessor
Mar 2013
#38
Actually you can do both, but I understand where you are coming from
ProgressiveProfessor
Mar 2013
#45
This is actually an insightful argument as to why ammunition will have to be regulated.
jmg257
Mar 2013
#118
If you think regulating assult weapons is a difficult proposition...
TampaAnimusVortex
Mar 2013
#124
So what is your solution to the problem? Or are you saying there should be no regs at all
uppityperson
Mar 2013
#32
Maybe we could actually address societies problems/inequalities and mental health issues
pediatricmedic
Mar 2013
#54
If your argument is that it's pointless to ban arms manufacturers from selling certain types of
TrollBuster9090
Mar 2013
#51
How long do you think it will take for the field of files to remain irreparably polluted by fakes?
Occulus
Mar 2013
#180
Your not very savy about reputation and community feedback systems are you?
TampaAnimusVortex
Mar 2013
#186
I'm not too worried about plastic guns with plastic bullets and home-made gunpowder.
arcane1
Mar 2013
#127
What are you talking about? The gun industry itself will be obsolete when this technology takes off.
TampaAnimusVortex
Mar 2013
#187
“I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms" - Barack Obama
hack89
Mar 2013
#22
You're not really fooling anyone, hack. I know you think you are, and it's a nice try.
apocalypsehow
Mar 2013
#84
You're not really fooling anyone, hack. I know you think you are, and it's a nice try.
apocalypsehow
Mar 2013
#92
You're not really fooling anyone, hack. I know you think you are, and it's a nice try.
apocalypsehow
Mar 2013
#101
Heh, I don't deny that A) people have a (natural) right to defend themselves and their property, and
TrollBuster9090
Mar 2013
#195
Or confirming it, rather than restoring it. For anyone to claim (as Madison inferred) that the
TrollBuster9090
Mar 2013
#208
And, of course, "well regulated" actually means regulations are acceptable.
Curmudgeoness
Mar 2013
#30
The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to put restrictions on the government....not the people.
davidn3600
Mar 2013
#46
Hmm, who to believe. The Supreme Court or some anonymous user of a political chatboard?
MadHound
Mar 2013
#50
I believe Stevens and 200 years of precedent, not the ridiculous Scalia decision you cite.
SunSeeker
Mar 2013
#57
I didn't say they couldn't govern themselves, just that they aren't always right.
SunSeeker
Mar 2013
#75
As Stevens' dissent pointed out, the Heller ruling contradicted SUPREME COURT precedent.
SunSeeker
Mar 2013
#64
Yep - the Heller ruling was the "Dred Scott" and "Plessey v. Ferugson" of our generation:
apocalypsehow
Mar 2013
#99
No. Unfortunately, that is the law now thanks to the ridiculous 2008 Heller decision. nt
SunSeeker
Mar 2013
#66
President Obama disagrees with you and says the 2nd amendment is an individual right
davidn3600
Mar 2013
#72
Hmmm..."MadHound" praising a 5-4 Rightwing court with Scalia in the lead...who to believe?
apocalypsehow
Mar 2013
#83
So, I suppose you completely and totally support President Obama's recent gun control proposals?
apocalypsehow
Mar 2013
#96
Actually, you don't - as shown over and over and over again, particularly with your opposition to
apocalypsehow
Mar 2013
#105
"Care to continue calling me a liar" - Why should I get in your way? You're doing a bang-up (no pun
apocalypsehow
Mar 2013
#147
"though I think that it will be fairly toothless, since the definition of "assault weapon" is so.."
apocalypsehow
Mar 2013
#107
The fact of the matter is the definition of assault weapon is pretty amorphous,
MadHound
Mar 2013
#110
There's another one up there saying everyone on the internet is authentic, so every time we see
patrice
Mar 2013
#131
The funny thing is, posters like that who have spent YEARS peddling the pro-NRA line are suddenly
apocalypsehow
Mar 2013
#148
You sure are anxious to get on the side of that right-wing Scalia court when it comes to their
apocalypsehow
Mar 2013
#98
Scalia supporters don't really impress me all that much - nor does his legal career impress the
apocalypsehow
Mar 2013
#106
You go right on supporting a right-wing supreme court justice's (Ronnie Raygun appointment) premier
apocalypsehow
Mar 2013
#150
There's also the actual powers granted to Congress in the text of the Constitution.
Bolo Boffin
Mar 2013
#82
You didn't make it a sentence without insulting the people you are trying to reach
Demo_Chris
Mar 2013
#85
Baloney. You just don't like the *FACTS* presented, to wit: the founding fathers did not care
apocalypsehow
Mar 2013
#87
Ahhhh, yet *another* "pro gun progressive"* who couldn't be bothered to read the content
apocalypsehow
Mar 2013
#91
Yes. We shouldn't believe that thigns are possible just because they happened before. n/t
Orsino
Mar 2013
#172
Of course the militia refers to "ordinary" citizens. That has always been the case, and it's...
slackmaster
Mar 2013
#119
Gotta love the impotent appeals to "should" that aren't supported by any kind of reasoning
slackmaster
Mar 2013
#199
And your brand of originalism, in turn, offers a dubious interpretation of the 2nd.
dairydog91
Mar 2013
#151
That gun troll actually linked to something called "whiteswillwinparty."
apocalypsehow
Mar 2013
#171
I just thought if you clicked it might take you to the Republican National Committee's home page.
apocalypsehow
Mar 2013
#178
I never claimed it wasn't an individual right. I claimed (and provided proof) that the Founders
TrollBuster9090
Mar 2013
#213
Yep, that was exactly my point. And while I'm not denying anybody's right to bear arms, my argument
TrollBuster9090
Mar 2013
#210